747400sp From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3301 posts, RR: 2 Posted (7 years 2 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 24906 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.
Dw747400 From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 1244 posts, RR: 1 Reply 1, posted (7 years 2 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 24908 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.
Seefivein From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 138 posts, RR: 0 Reply 2, posted (7 years 2 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 24868 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.
==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 ....
Lumberton From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 4708 posts, RR: 21 Reply 6, posted (7 years 2 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 24764 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".
KC135R From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 699 posts, RR: 5 Reply 7, posted (7 years 2 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 24766 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:
MigFan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 13, posted (7 years 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 24727 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?
KC135R From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 699 posts, RR: 5 Reply 17, posted (7 years 2 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 24608 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.
747400sp From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3301 posts, RR: 2 Reply 18, posted (7 years 2 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 24584 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.
Wingnut135 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 134 posts, RR: 0 Reply 21, posted (7 years 2 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 24500 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.
A good friend will get you out of jail. A real friend will be there with you saying, "Damn that was fun!"
XC5Eng From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 54 posts, RR: 0 Reply 22, posted (7 years 1 week 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 24327 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!
747400sp From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3301 posts, RR: 2 Reply 24, posted (7 years 1 week 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 24182 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 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 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 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 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 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?