Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Why So Many People In The USAF Dislike C-5?  
User currently offline747400sp From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3588 posts, RR: 2
Posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 27904 times:

I have talk to KC-10s and C-17 pilot all have said they do not like the C-5, they said it unreliable. I know the C-5 got off to a bad start but there must be some good to it because there are no plans to it.

78 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineDw747400 From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 1258 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 27909 times:

The C-5 is an extremely complex aircraft, and it has never been known as being exceptionally reliable. As it ages, this has only gotten worse (though I believe the latest retrofits will improve dispatch rate some).

That said, its capable of lifting more than any other aircraft we have--virtually every Army vehicle, as well as many helicopters, construction equipment, and even partially dissasembled aircraft.

A KC-10, even operating in a cargo role, simply does not have the volume or weight capacity, and the C-17, though closer, was never intended to pick up the load of a maxed-out C-5.



CFI--Certfied Freakin Idiot
User currently offlineSeefivein From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 139 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 27868 times:

Some are just Boeing all the way - no matter what.

==The C-5 is an extremely complex aircraft, and it has never been known as being exceptionally reliable. As it ages, this has only gotten worse (though I believe the latest retrofits will improve dispatch rate some).

The C-5 started in the early 60's with out all the computers to make it before it was built. The terrain it was needed to go over was mainly dirt and little good runways. Take a C17 - fully loaded and land it out in a field and see what happens to it........


==That said, its capable of lifting more than any other aircraft we have--virtually every Army vehicle, as well as many helicopters, construction equipment, and even partially dissasembled aircraft.

Yes,

==A KC-10, even operating in a cargo role, simply does not have the volume or weight capacity, and the C-17, though closer, was never intended to pick up the load of a maxed-out C-5.

Just think if they had stuck with the wing design that they started with, what the Antonov 225 looks like now (6 engines too) what comments would be of the fleet??? The famous engine sound would not probably be.

I've heard some rumors that the C17 is not to good at paratrooper drop training,,something about tuberlance that throws you in a spin ....


User currently offline2H4 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 8955 posts, RR: 60
Reply 3, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 27883 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
DATABASE EDITOR




Quoting Seefivein (Reply 2):
Take a C17 - fully loaded and land it out in a field and see what happens to it........

C-17s have weight restrictions that limit operations from unpaved runways? How severely restricted are they under those conditions? C-5s don't have similar restrictions?

Sorry for all the questions...just curious.  Smile




2H4





Intentionally Left Blank
User currently offlineLaxintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 25073 posts, RR: 46
Reply 4, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 27856 times:

The C-5 while certainly a capable airplane has terrible overall readiness and dispatch reliability rate.

It not rare to have the worldwide fleet be at mere 50% operational state on some days, and to have some bases with significant portion of their fleets down for one reason or another.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29795 posts, RR: 58
Reply 5, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 27829 times:

Because any time an Air Force maint. guy needs a jackstand, all the ones on base will be stored under a C-5.


OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineLumberton From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 4708 posts, RR: 20
Reply 6, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 27763 times:

Quoting Dw747400 (Reply 1):
The C-5 is an extremely complex aircraft, and it has never been known as being exceptionally reliable. As it ages, this has only gotten worse (though I believe the latest retrofits will improve dispatch rate some).

In my experience, I've never seen one take off as scheduled, and this is back in the '80s and early '90s. Seems like it hasn't improved. How many cargo missions, SAAM missions, etc., did I have to answer the question "is it there yet". Answer, "no, it hasn't taken off yet".



"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
User currently offlineKC135R From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 725 posts, RR: 4
Reply 7, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 27764 times:

To answer the original question, I have never worked a C-5, but from what I gather from fellow maintainers it's just downright unreliable and a bit of a pain to work on (mostly just due to the complexity and sheer size of it).

Of course, as others have pointed out, it can carry cargo that no other airplane in the inventory has the capability to.

Quoting Dw747400 (Reply 1):
A KC-10, even operating in a cargo role, simply does not have the volume or weight capacity, and the C-17, though closer, was never intended to pick up the load of a maxed-out C-5.

True that neither the KC-10 or C-17 can carry the weight or volume of the C-5, but the C-17 and KC-10 are actually much closer to each other in performance than your statement indicates. Of course, the C-17 has a clear advantage over the 10 when talking about large objects, but other than that the numbers are pretty close - just to put it in perspective:

C-5 can carry 36 pallets and 270,000 pounds of cargo
http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=84

C-17 can carry 18 pallets and 170,900 pounds of cargo
http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=86

KC-10 can carry 27 pallets and 170,000 pounds of cargo
http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=109

So the 10 can carry nearly the same weight and has more pallet positions than a 17. I thought that was interesting when I first heard it so I thought it was worth mentioning.


User currently offlineMigFan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 27740 times:

What does thne C-5M modification plan bring to the table? Does the fact that the C-5s are stored outdoors attribute to their poor serviceability rate?

/M


User currently offlineKC135R From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 725 posts, RR: 4
Reply 9, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 27738 times:

Quoting MigFan (Reply 8):
What does thne C-5M modification plan bring to the table?

Primarily new engines (CF6-80C2) and avionics.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/c-5m.htm

Quoting MigFan (Reply 8):
Does the fact that the C-5s are stored outdoors attribute to their poor serviceability rate?

I wouldn't think so, nearly all USAF aircraft are stored outdoors, really all aircraft are if you think about it, and most don't share the C-5's low reliability.

[Edited 2006-05-07 15:10:26]

User currently offlineZkpilot From New Zealand, joined Mar 2006, 4818 posts, RR: 9
Reply 10, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 27747 times:

Quoting Seefivein (Reply 2):
Take a C17 - fully loaded and land it out in a field and see what happens to it........

You mean this C-17??  Wink
http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c271/zkpilot/160b.jpg


But yes the C-5 is an awesome aircraft! only the AN-124 and 225 come close (and we all know about the 225)



56 types. 38 countries. 24 airlines.
User currently offlineMigFan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 27737 times:

The USAF keeps the F-22A outside? Boy, I'd rub that thing with a diaper! I am quite sure the F-117 and TR-3s are kept hangared.

: )

/M


User currently offlineKC135R From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 725 posts, RR: 4
Reply 12, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 27733 times:

Quoting MigFan (Reply 11):
The USAF keeps the F-22A outside? Boy, I'd rub that thing with a diaper! I am quite sure the F-117 and TR-3s are kept hangared.

Oops...I meant to type nearly all aircraft - there are a few that stay inside.


User currently offlineMigFan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 27726 times:

It is kind of funny. I noticed in the Army that the operational birds (UH-1/AH-1/OH-6) were kept outside, but the cannabalized airframes were hangared in "Cold Storage". Army thinking, I guess. The neighboring AFRES unit kept the herks outside. Any herk with it's tail sticking out of the hangar was in for maintenance. Does AF1 stay outside?

/M


User currently offlineSeefivein From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 139 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 27724 times:

Quoting Seefivein (Reply 2):
Take a C17 - fully loaded and land it out in a field and see what happens to it........

You mean this C-17??



But yes the C-5 is an awesome aircraft! only the AN-124 and 225 come close (and we all know about the 225)

Tha's a nice pic,, it looks like a dirt runway that is smooth.


User currently offlineKC135R From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 725 posts, RR: 4
Reply 15, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 27718 times:

Quoting Seefivein (Reply 14):
Tha's a nice pic,, it looks like a dirt runway that is smooth.

Dry lake bed if I remember correctly.


User currently offlineA342 From Germany, joined Jul 2005, 4681 posts, RR: 3
Reply 16, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 27647 times:

Quoting KC135R (Reply 9):
new engines (CF6-80C2)

Leaving political reasons aside, wouldn't the RR Trent 500 been a better engine as it's a fair bit newer than the CF6 ?

Did commonality issues (AF 1 has basically the same engines) play a role ?



Exceptions confirm the rule.
User currently offlineKC135R From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 725 posts, RR: 4
Reply 17, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 27606 times:

Quoting A342 (Reply 16):
Leaving political reasons aside, wouldn't the RR Trent 500 been a better engine as it's a fair bit newer than the CF6 ?

It might be better, but I don't know because I would have to see a side by side comparison detailing how each engine would perform on the C-5, which of course I have not, but nonetheless....

...I suspect timing had more to do with it than anything, the government moves slowly and even though the modernization project has only just begun, decisions about what would be done and who would do it were made years ago.

It looks like the initial proposal to modernize the C-5 was made in 1998 and was proposed by a team made up of Lockheed (acft manufacturer), Honeywell (avionics), and GE (engines). From what I can gather the Trent 500 wasn't certified until 2000, so the Trent was still being developed when the proposal was made.

That's just my guess based on some quick internet research, but even assuming it had been available and that it was the better performer, there's nothing saying that it would have been chosen - political nonsense could have come in to play. But, it looks like it was a couple of years too late to have been a contender anyway, so that's just speculation.


User currently offline747400sp From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3588 posts, RR: 2
Reply 18, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 27582 times:

TF-39 bigger than both engines 100 inches in diamiter, CF6-50 86 inches in diamiter and Trident 500 97 inches in diamiter .

By the way are the C-5M using CF6-50 or CF6-80? I read that it was getting 63000 lb trust CF6-50, but I think CF6-50 only goes up to 54000 lb and the CF6-80 can up up to 63000 lb in trust corrects me (in a nice way) if I am rouge.

PS: I am going to miss those loud TF-39.


User currently offlineContinentalFan From United States of America, joined Oct 2000, 357 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 27576 times:

Quoting 747400sp (Reply 18):
By the way are the C-5M using CF6-50 or CF6-80

CF6-80C2.

Also, CF6 v. Trent 500... Isn't it true that the CF6 family is related/descended from the TF39, and thus wouldn't it be a little easier to retrofit?


User currently offlineKC135R From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 725 posts, RR: 4
Reply 20, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 27558 times:

Quoting ContinentalFan (Reply 19):
Isn't it true that the CF6 family is related/descended from the TF39, and thus wouldn't it be a little easier to retrofit?

Yes, it is true that the TF39 is the "parent" of the CF6 family (according to GE themselves).

http://www.geae.com/engines/military/tf39/index.html

But I don't know that it will make any difference in retrofitting.


User currently offlineWingnut135 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 134 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 27498 times:

Quoting Seefivein (Reply 2):
Take a C17 - fully loaded and land it out in a field and see what happens to it........

I have: both left main gear doors missing, both nose gear doors missing, 5 blown main tires, a crescent shaped gouge on the front and rear of the nose strut (it dug in and then sprung back), and #4 engine drug thru the dirt (required change). Took 5 Boeing reps 3 and 1/2 weeks to get it patched up enough to fly back to the States.

As big of a pain in the ass Fred is I still enjoyed working it more than I enjoyed working anything else I've ever worked (KC-135R, E-8C, C-5A & B, C-17, C-141B & C, F-15E). It was never boring because it was never the same thing twice. Guess I'm one of the strange ones.

Quoting ContinentalFan (Reply 19):
Isn't it true that the CF6 family is related/descended from the TF39, and thus wouldn't it be a little easier to retrofit?

But with so many years between them will it be that easy? Of course you're looking at all the avionics associated with each engine being replaced as well.

Wingnut



A good friend will get you out of jail. A real friend will be there with you saying, "Damn that was fun!"
User currently offlineXC5Eng From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 54 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 27326 times:

Hey guys, let me tell you something about the C5. I have a lot of hours on them and can give you a front seat opinion. I can tell you that it is my experience that we had more on-time departures than not. When we did not it was a mix of mechanical problems and waiting for the cargo to show up (it was late more often than not). In addition, the crews are very thorough with pre-flight's and had a low tolerance of taking an iffy jet if they don't need to. That would also credit the stellar safety record the C5 has. It is a very complex vehicle... as far as systems goes, it shares many of the same systems and computers with the shuttle. I'm not saying that it is as complex as the shuttle, but at one time it was in second place to it. We did break down... sometimes in some nice places and sometimes in some not so nice places. Sometimes we were in a really nice place and couldn't find anything wrong no matter how hard we tried!  

Now let me tell you about some C5 history that many don't know about. In the 80s, as a result of the failed Desert 1 mission, the aircraft and a select few crew were tasked with a Spec Ops mission. This mission continued till just a few years ago. I was a member of the Spec Ops unit tasked with that mission in the 90s. We flew with a whole different set of limits and performance data. These limits if exceeded would break the jet or worse. We flew at tree top altitude, would operate on short dirt strips, stop on a dime, backup, and offload all in a matter of minutes. These tasks would challenge the limits of any crew of any jet at any time during the day. We did this in complete darkness on NVGs. Now consider the fact that the C5 has flown hundreds of actual Spec Ops sorties in it's history with a 100% success rate (to my knowledge as of the late 90s). The fact that no one new about our missions made it successful! These missions could not have been performed by no other aircraft... including the C17. Trust me!

In Jan of '94 we performed a test for the Pentagon to document the affects that wing tip vortexes had on chutes during airdrop of troops and cargo. We conducted these tests at different spacing of 3 ship formations. Then we conducted a record setting 6 ship C5 formation drop. At the same time we set a record weight drop while testing the CDS on the C5. It was a hydraulic controlled pallet train. All this was to try to make the C17 a better delivery system... heh!

So... before we begin to judge any jet, including the C17 , we all need to look a little deeper into it's accomplishments. Well maybe not the 17!  Wow!

[Edited 2006-05-09 17:29:10]

User currently offlineZkpilot From New Zealand, joined Mar 2006, 4818 posts, RR: 9
Reply 23, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 27215 times:

I like the C-5...its an amazing aircraft!
I just like the C-17 more... I think for a cargo aircraft its a sexy beast! Big grin



56 types. 38 countries. 24 airlines.
User currently offline747400sp From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3588 posts, RR: 2
Reply 24, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 27180 times:

If they plan to keep the C-5 pass 2020 it's must have a lot of good in it. I was a little shock to her loaded maters and pilot talk bad about it. It seems like everybody love the C-17. Do not get me rouge I think it is cool there a jet flying with four 757 engines, but the C-5 Galaxy is a great plane in my eyes. This was the biggest jet in the world from the 60's to the 80's only out sized by the AN-124/AN-225 (witch is the same family of aircraft). The C-5 Galaxy is also the biggest jet ever built in the United States, so I could not see how such a jet could be dislike at all.

25 KevinSmith : Not sure I follow. Are you saying they like the C-17 and KC-10 because they are Boeing birds? The C-17 and KC-10 aren't true Boeing birds. They are M
26 FlyUSCG : Nope Would this be the C-17 (10196?) from Charleston AFB that I have pictures of sitting in a maint. hangar at Long Beach right next to the tower? It
27 Venus6971 : How about some of those pics. Having worked on the C-17,C-5 and the AN-124 I would say I like the C-17 the best but I like how the Russians simplify
28 ZANL188 : The lack of a pallet system is intentional. The Russian Air Force does not have the Aerial Port system USAF does that makes a pallet system make sens
29 KevinSmith : Let's not forget that the C-17 won the Collier Trophy. It was the first and only cargo aircraft to ever win the award.
30 Wingnut135 : Nope. I don't remember the tail number but this one bounced 150' short in Afganaland on a night mission in the beginning of OEF (Jan 02). The pilot a
31 ZANL188 : I never heard of a 30 day rule while I was stationed there in the mid 90s, but the 90 day rule certainly existed. Any nonpersonal property the USAF l
32 TropicBird : Below is an excerpt from this weeks AW&ST. Notice the comment about the C-5A not performing well even with the upgrades and that the AMP and RERP prog
33 FlyUSCG : I was told it was in Afghanistan. As for loading the pics, what do you guys suggest I use to get the on the internet? I can load them on facebook or
34 Wingnut135 : Maybe it was Afghanistan, been out of the t-tail world for a couple of years (hope to be back in it next year after Korea!). You could just load them
35 Post contains links and images KevinSmith : 0196 did go off the runway at Bagram. http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?storyID=123011269 It did go to Long Beach for repairs. View Large View MediumP
36 Post contains images FlyUSCG : These are the only 2 I have. And they were a pain in the ass to get. But it's better than nothing...
37 Venus6971 : Thanks for the pics, suprised if they wont make this thing a ground tranier at Shepard . Noticing the cargo straps around the fuselage, they do that
38 A342 : I thought the An-124 has a titanium floor ? But as you have worked on the aircraft, I guess you're right... Could you explain where exactly it is use
39 Post contains images Wingnut135 : Thanks for posting, good shots. Looks like they were canning the hell out of it with the engines and rudder missing. Nice WWII poster in your profile
40 FlyUSCG : Thanks. For the second one I had to go park my truck next to the little black sedan from the first one and prop myself up on my bumper with one leg a
41 CF188A : I was told by some US Army guys coming back home from Iraq, that they prefer the C5 over the C-17 anyday... apparently the C5 is very cosy to fly in a
42 ZANL188 : The plywood is used to protect the structure from damage. For example tank treads will put holes in an aluminum floor, the plywood distributes the we
43 Echster : Oh, yeah! No question there. The C-17 is equivalent to an open bay with uncomfortable seats on the sides facing the middle. The C-5 has a sweet seati
44 Post contains links Echster : I can't find it right now but I read a story today about Boeing and the Air Force brass thinking of going to Congress and asking for more C-17s. What
45 Post contains images Wingnut135 : Maybe in a new thread? We're supposed to be dogging the C-5 here. Which isn't happening too much Especially if you're on one of the early blocks that
46 Seefivein : I agree with you on that. Boeing employee's all the way with Boeing plants. I would like to know where are all of the parts for the C-17's made?
47 Post contains images A342 : Ok, thank you ! LOL !
48 Galaxy5007 : As a fond person of the C-5, I personally think it is a waste to RERP the A models. AMP alone helps alot with the MCR, as proven at Dover with thier f
49 Wannabe : From a logistics standpoint, how difficult would it be for an ANG base like Stewart to manage a mixed fleet of C5B's and C17]s?
50 Venus6971 : ALot of the C-5 Guard units can't do the major mx inspections and to go Dover or Travis for this, when they are given or built hangers to to do C-5 mx
51 Thorny : That story, by the way, is false. Fisher Pens spent a large amount of money to create the "Space Pen", not NASA. NASA simply bought some of the pens
52 Post contains links Wingnut135 : Dover for the active, Westover for the reserves. No news on the guard yet. Dover To Be Active Hub For C-5 Isochronal Inspections Westover Named Sole
53 Galaxy5007 : Actually, that isn't implemented yet. Currently, Travis, Dover, Westover and Lackland are doing ISO for Memphis and Wright-Pat. Basically, whatever b
54 Blackbird : How is the C-5 a very complex aircraft? Andrea K
55 Checksixx : Personally if I had the choice I'd fly C-17, no question. Although sitting backwards on the '5 can be fun, its most certainly uncomfortable on long fl
56 Galaxy5007 : Well considering they were using 60s technology, everything has to work in sequence, or it doesn't work. The problem comes in when say a landing gear
57 AzoresLover : A bit of humor here... When I was in the Air Force during the 1970's one of my friends was a C-5 pilot. He gave me a tour of the plane one day, tip-to
58 AzoresLover : I've gotta add one more post here about the C-5. One morning at Lajes, Azores, we had a C-5 coming in with both #1 and #2 engines out, heavy load of f
59 Post contains images Venus6971 : Maybe the USAF should find that pilot and hire him back as a consultant on how to land a engine out C-5, the last attempt wasn't so hot.
60 Post contains images Wingnut135 : Quoting Galaxy5007 (Reply 53): Although it hasn't been stated, Martinsburg will be the Guard unit taking care of the Guard jets. The articles were pub
61 Galaxy5007 : I know they just picked the bases, but like I said, its not going to be implemented until late 07, early 08. Yes, Martinsburg just got thier first tw
62 XC5Eng : Well let me give you an FE's point of view. Hmmm... where do I start? How about flight controls- ALDCS, Flight Aug computers, 2 Hydr sys per flight c
63 Seefivein : I guess everyone thinks all they do is sit back are enjoy the flight (heh heh)
64 Checksixx : My choices in order (and I've flown in all of them) would be: C-17, C-5, C-130 and C-141...I know the '130 is in a slightly smaller class but its been
65 Checksixx : Sorry...thats supposed to say I wouldn't say I hate the others. Damn fingers....Check
66 Galaxy5 : Because they dont really know anything about the C-5, thats why. They don't know about the operations, engineering or technology that went into the C-
67 Wingnut135 : That suprizes me, with the way they've been flying the hell out of them since the begining of OEF. Mildenhall, Turkey, Rhein-Main, Ramstein and Rota;
68 Post contains images 747400sp : I have to admit it, I even like the the C-17, but the C-5 is the Queen of or Cargo force.
69 Galaxy5007 : Yes, but Martinsburg hasn't been flying missions yet, so they don't exactly count. Seems to me, that a specific handful of A-models are always flying
70 JohnM : Dover is AMPed up, so Travis will be playing AMP games 101 very soon, if not already. Somebody mentioned 47 B models left. There are 49 remaining out
71 Galaxy5007 : Travis Aircraft are currently AMPed. However, They are delaying the implementation of the AMP aircraft at Travis at the moment due to the C-17 delive
72 JohnM : What does Travis have for AMP airplanes? Maybe 3 or 4? Can't be many as Dover was getting amp mod jets done @ Travis. That's how we got 6011 back, 500
73 Galaxy5007 : Travis has the following for AMP jets- 5008, 6011, 8216, 6022, 7030. 7028, 7042, 7032, and 6015 are in AMP mod status for Travis. Travis is loaning 6
74 B747 : As Galaxy5007 pointed out about the C-17 01-0196, it was at Pope the other day. I was quick-turning it. It was headed to Ramstein. It has been been ch
75 Post contains images Wingnut135 : It will always be Kelly to me!! Did they move the school from Altus? If so, when and where the hell was I? Wingnut
76 Post contains links Galaxy5007 : Here is the link to the school house operations at Lackland, which were in full swing on Feb 6th. http://www.af.mil/news/story_print.asp?storyID=12304
77 B747 : I didn't get any photo's. They tend to be very picky about camera's on the flightline, so I don't even bother with it. By the way 69-0010 was here at
78 Galaxy5007 : Yeah, I got a picture of its tail posted on Myaviation.net, just look up C-5 Galaxy. I also posted a pic of 6026 at the Andrews AFB air show last May.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Why So Many People In The USAF Dislike C-5?
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...
Why So Many Random Schemes On Usaf 707s? posted Tue Jul 23 2002 12:02:30 by Na
Why So Many Strobes On A KC10? posted Fri Feb 27 2004 05:28:14 by MD11LuxuryLinr
Anyone Here In The Usaf? posted Sat Nov 1 2003 04:51:15 by FlyLAX
Why So Long For A KC-135R To Get Into The Air? posted Sun Sep 10 2006 02:01:28 by 747400sp
Why The USAF Never Bought F-14 Tomcat? posted Thu May 11 2006 01:33:54 by 747400sp
Why The Usaf Cancel The YC-14 & YC-15 posted Tue Feb 21 2006 00:19:19 by 747400sp
Why The Usaf Did Not Rengine The C-141 Starlifter posted Fri Feb 3 2006 20:21:58 by 747400sp
Why Not A Dedicated Tanker Design For The Usaf? posted Tue Jan 3 2006 04:20:46 by Dandy_don
What Is There To So In The Space Industry? posted Thu Jan 13 2005 23:02:00 by Lehpron
Open A Base In Iraq For The Usaf? posted Tue Jul 29 2003 15:05:13 by CX747

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format