Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Modified C-5 To Airfreight The Aurora?  
User currently offlineBOE773 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 4191 times:

Would anyone have a picture or even have seen the C-5 that transports the Aurora hypersonic spaceplane to and from Groome lake and various other airfields. I read about it in Aviation Week and Space Technology magazine that two C5s was modified by widening their forward fuselages to accept the Aurora's wings without them having to be removed for air transporting. I'm not sure as to the exact model of C5.
Thanks.

41 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineMigFan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 4099 times:

The C-5A was the standard model that first appeared in 1968, around 75 were made. C-5Bs were improved models of the C-5A. Two C-5Cs were modified for use by NASA for transporting large payloads.

Maybe that is it, but why not just fly the Aurora?

/M


User currently offlineSpacepope From Vatican City, joined Dec 1999, 2923 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 4093 times:

Just to clarify, the C-5Cs were modified by removing the rear troop deck for increased internal height, not by expanding the fuselage.


The last of the famous international playboys
User currently offlineMigFan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 6 days ago) and read 4069 times:

Quoting Spacepope (Reply 2):
Just to clarify, the C-5Cs were modified by removing the rear troop deck for increased internal height, not by expanding the fuselage.

You might want to check out wikipedia's entry on the C-5.

/M


User currently offlineBOE773 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 4007 times:

My original post has turned into major thread creep!!

I am not interested in a history lesson as to how many C-5As were produced, nor modified to C-5Bs, nor modded to -Cs. Thanks anyway.

The specific C5s that I'm interested in had two 'blisters' built into the forward fuselage just at the fwd ramp cut-out to accept the Aurora's wingspan.

Now, has anyone have any more info?
Thanks.


User currently offlineAislepathLight From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 562 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 4002 times:

Quoting MigFan (Reply 3):

You might want to check out wikipedia's entry on the C-5.

Sorry to be off topic, but do you actually believe Wiki? It is all classified, and all one can do is guess.



"We have slain a large dragon, but we now live in a jungle filled with a bewildering variety of poisonous snakes."
User currently offlineGalaxy5007 From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 626 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 3992 times:

Quoting BOE773 (Reply 4):
The specific C5s that I'm interested in had two 'blisters' built into the forward fuselage just at the fwd ramp cut-out to accept the Aurora's wingspan.

I can tell you, No C-5 has been modified in the fwd fuselage area. The only 2 that were modified were 68-213 and 216, to C-5Cs, and as stated above, had the troop compartment removed, and aft door complex re-done to allow additional height clearance. Where ever you got that info, is false information.


User currently offlineBOE773 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 3991 times:

Quoting Galaxy5007 (Reply 6):

AWST magazine.


User currently offlineGalaxy5007 From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 626 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 3983 times:

Post the article, although I can probably still say they are FOS.

User currently offlineJwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 18
Reply 9, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 3979 times:

Well, since Aurora doesn't exist there's no need to transport it  Smile


I wish I were flying
User currently offlineRichardPrice From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 3938 times:

Quoting Galaxy5007 (Reply 8):
Post the article, although I can probably still say they are FOS.



Quoting Jwenting (Reply 9):
Well, since Aurora doesn't exist there's no need to transport it

Im going to go with both these posts - Aurora is a myth, its a legend, a set of wishes.


User currently offlineSLCPilot From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 583 posts, RR: 2
Reply 11, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 3929 times:

When the Blackstar/Blacklight project article in AW&ST was published about six months ago it was quickly agreed that there was a lot of very poor reporting, conjecture, and questionable claims. One of these was the existance to two visibly modified C-5s with cheek cowls to accomodate bigger (wider) loads. It was generally agreed that no C-5 has ever been seen publicly with such a modification, and those in the C-5 world agreed that all of the airframes were accounted for. Furthermore, the supposed aircraft serial numbers were bogus. A little googling will help in your search for these C-5s.

I suspect your seach will be a fruitless one. Good luck nevertheless....

SLCPilot



I don't like to be fueled by anger, I don't like to be fooled by lust...
User currently offlineMigfan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 3901 times:

Quoting AislepathLight (Reply 5):
do you actually believe Wiki? It is all classified, and all one can do is guess.

Who would claim that type of information to be false???? If you want to delve deeper, look into LM's production figures for the L-500 1986-1989.


User currently offlineRichardPrice From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 3891 times:

Quoting Migfan (Reply 12):
Who would claim that type of information to be false???? If you want to delve deeper, look into LM's production figures for the L-500 1986-1989.

Not entirely sure what you are trying to say exactly. Production from 1986 - 1989 on the L-500 line was the production C-5B series of 50 aircraft and two C-5Cs produced in 1988 and 1989 with tailnumbers 213 and 216, both currently reside at Travis AFB.

All production numbers of the C-5 can be accounted for.

Wikipedia is a very unreliable source of information, it should never be quoted without many other trustworthy and reliable sources also quoted to back it up.


User currently offlineSpacepope From Vatican City, joined Dec 1999, 2923 posts, RR: 1
Reply 14, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 3853 times:

Quoting MigFan (Reply 3):
You might want to check out wikipedia's entry on the C-5.

/M

As a researcher, I know crap data when I see it. Wiki is useless as a resource if ANY degree of accuracy is required. In any case, according to wiki:

Quote:
Two specially modified variants of the C-5C were created for NASA. These aircraft, numbers 68-0213 and 68-0216, were redesigned for use in transporting large payloads, such as satellites and, as such, have a larger internal cargo capacity than any of the other C-5 variants.

So, do you think these aircraft have the special "cheeks" for the "Aurora", or do you think that a simpler method of increasing internal volume was used?

Next time try a RELIABLE SOURCE. Here's Globalsecurity:

Quote:
The C-5C is a Space Cargo Modified Galaxy specially modified to carry satellites and other large cargo. It is the only modified version of the C-5 that provides special airlift support for satellites. With the troop compartment removed and modification to their rear loading doors, it has a larger cargo area than other C-5s. There are two places to plug in external power, one for aircraft power and one to provide power for the payload canister. These two aircraft (68-0213 and 68-0216) are assigned to the 60th Airlift Wing at Travis AFB. According to some reports, the 68-0216 aircraft was chosen for the modification after it had landed with the nose gear up, and it was in need of refurbishment in any event. The the 68-0213 aircraft was supposedly selected after a fire in the troop compartment during depo maintenance.



The last of the famous international playboys
User currently offlineSpacepope From Vatican City, joined Dec 1999, 2923 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 3852 times:

And here's a pic of 68-0216.... no cheeks here....


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Robert M Rossman




The last of the famous international playboys
User currently offlineDeltaDC9 From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 2844 posts, RR: 4
Reply 16, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 3850 times:

Quoting MigFan (Reply 3):
You might want to check out wikipedia's entry on the C-5.

Some of these nutcases here on A.net are more reliable than Wikipedia

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 10):
Im going to go with both these posts - Aurora is a myth, its a legend, a set of wishes.

Which is exactly what they said about the U-2, SR-71, F-117, B-2, and many other planes. Or did the US suddenly forget how to build bleeding edge designs?

Since black projects still exist, the fruits of their labors must exist also.



Dont take life too seriously because you will never get out of it alive - Bugs Bunny
User currently offlineRichardPrice From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 3834 times:

Quoting DeltaDC9 (Reply 16):
Which is exactly what they said about the U-2, SR-71, F-117, B-2, and many other planes. Or did the US suddenly forget how to build bleeding edge designs?

The Aurora has been rumoured since the 1970s, and in 1986 got its 'name' from a Fiscal budget report line item.

The B-2 was made public before it flew.

The F-117 was made public 10 years after it first flew.

The U-2 was made public less than 6 years after it first flew.

The SR-71 was made public less than 2 years after the A-12 flew, and the same year the SR-71 prototype flew.

Are you seriously saying the Aurora has been kept secret since the 1970s? over 20 years since the fiscal line item was made public? This cutting edge aircraft thats been rumoured to exist now for nigh on 30 years?

Yes, the USAF is probably developing advanced aircraft, but Im sorry - the mythical aircraft that is the Aurora just doesnt exist.


User currently offlineAirRyan From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2532 posts, RR: 5
Reply 18, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 3808 times:

Is this the Aurora, because I have seen it before?!  Smile



User currently offlineXC5Eng From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 54 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 3789 times:

LOL...  rotfl  this is some funny stuff! Well, whether it exists or not we can positively say that no C-5 fuselage modification exists to transport a fixed-wing aircraft. You want to transport an aircraft with a C-5?  hyper  Just cut the wings and stabs off and slide her in... nooo problem!  tongue 

User currently offlineMigfan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 3754 times:

Ok, I get it...

No one gives Wiki any credibility, that's is why millions of people use it.

BELIEVE ME, I understand. I work at a University, and no professor accepts Wikipedia sources, BUT the articles are only as good as the one writing it. That is the great thing, anyone can add and contrbute. Thus, allowing a better chance for truth to surface.

The responses listed above also illustrate the dated views some folks have.

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 17):
Yes, the USAF is probably developing advanced aircraft, but Im sorry - the mythical aircraft that is the Aurora just doesnt exist.

Can you say that with absolute, 100%, beyond a reasonable, prove-it in a court of law, certainty? I don't think any of us can...

/M


User currently offlineAirRyan From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2532 posts, RR: 5
Reply 21, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 3748 times:

Quoting Migfan (Reply 20):
Can you say that with absolute, 100%, beyond a reasonable, prove-it in a court of law, certainty? I don't think any of us can...

And we can't even be certain of who shot JFK, either. Anything is possible, I guess.



User currently offlineRichardPrice From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 3723 times:

Quoting Migfan (Reply 20):
Can you say that with absolute, 100%, beyond a reasonable, prove-it in a court of law, certainty? I don't think any of us can...

I can say with 100% absolute certainty that the aircraft everyone has been talking about for the past 30 years doesnt exist.

Come on, take a look at the range of 'capabilities' the Aurora has been touted to have, and then take a look at the level of technology we currently have - sure, extrapolate for black projects being 15 years ahead but even then it comes nowhere near enough to fulfil the Aurora fantasy that theorists have.


User currently offlineMigfan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 3712 times:

I am sorry, that just sounds like a biased opinion, and a "glass is half-empty" one too. We don't know what the USAF and the US Govt. has tucked away. We only know what the Govt. lets us know, and in these days that is becoming less and less.

It may not be "Aurora", which the name proven to be a piece of artistic license, but something is out there. Look at the expansion Area-51 has undergone in the last ten years. The place is huge, with one on the longest runways in the world!

That is a lot of airbase and secrecy for nothing...

/M


User currently offlineRichardPrice From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 3706 times:

Quoting Migfan (Reply 23):
I am sorry, that just sounds like a biased opinion, and a "glass is half-empty" one too

And yours sounds like the wish of a schoolboy.

Im a realist, I look at the technology available today, the technology available 30 years ago and extrapolate.

30 years ago we were flying at Mach 2 in comfort, at Mach 3 in spacesuits. Today nothings really changed.

30 years ago we were sending up astronauts on essentially large tanks of fuel. Massive tanks of fuel actually. Today nothings really changed.

30 years ago we were struggling with audible sonic booms. Today nothings really changed.

30 years ago we were having issues with fuel efficiency. Today nothings really changed.

Theres nothing at all to suggest that a hypersonic suborbital craft with a fuel efficiency that means it doesnt require spaceshuttle sized fueltanks, that is able to fly extremely fast without producing sonic booms for extended periods of time within the atmoshpere is within our capability to produce at this moment in time.

And all of that is supposed to happen within a military procurement structure that the Soviets had penetrated to a significant degree in the 1970s and 1980s - with the amount of money they were throwing at operatives, traitors and spies during that era, some leak would have occured and we would have found out about that when the KGB and GRU archives were opened in the 1990s.

I just cannot believe that the USAF funded, developed, built, operated and retired (supposedly) a hypersonic aircraft that by todays standards couldnt be built in complete and utter secrecy for 30 years.

And for the obvious 'well, stealth wasnt capable until the F-117 was built' comment - the concept for the F-117 design came from a Soviet scientists research paper in the public domain, in which he had even laid out complex algorythms. His name was Pyotr Ufimstev.


25 Post contains images XC5Eng : This is getting real good!
26 Lehpron : I am approaching this from a purely technocal sense, this is far from a humorous subject, IMO. The cargo bay of the C-5 (even something like An-225) i
27 Dw747400 : Your assumption seems to rely on looking at the rumors and conjectures as either all accurate or all false. It is more likely that some information r
28 Migfan : I think that is the idea. Also, the one thing that stops progress was not mentioned, money. We are not flying faster, farther, and comfier because it
29 Boeing Nut : A fantastic publication - but they aren't flawless.
30 Post contains links Seefivein : Being that the Air force Owns the C-5's - I do not know of any project the original post has asked . Maybe a B-52 that NASA has purchased might be the
31 L-188 : They had a C-5C and a C-5A/B on display at Arctic Thunder a couple of years back. It was an interesting comparison. Checks no-reworked doors and the
32 Blackbird : First of all, someone here stated that in the 1960's we could do Mach 2 with comfort, and Mach 3 in space-suits. That is not entirely correct. Lockhee
33 BOE773 : was a screwjack used to move the spike fwd and aft ?
34 Post contains images AislepathLight : Hands down the longest and most informative post
35 Post contains links BOE773 : Thanks for that excellent post with all that good info pulled together, even though I've read most of this in various publications already. http://www
36 Post contains links BOE773 : http://history.nasa.gov/x15/cover.html
37 Migfan : No kidding, great stuff ! I had to read that twice...
38 Checksixx : I can tell you that there are some strange things flying out at Groom. Been out on the ranges late at night and seen some amazing things. I don't real
39 BOE773 : What was your specific location, lat/long? Man, there is great futuristic stuff going on at Groome. I'm all on for it but average joe public has no b
40 Migfan : You mean you don't know... They're UFOs man !!! Probably DIA folks with a bunch of R/C models messing with the folks freezing in the night time deser
41 DeltaDC9 : What I am saying is that is it more than likely that a SR-71 replacement is active. The on again off again retirement of the SR-71 is a key clue. I d
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Modified C-5 To Airfreight The Aurora?
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...
First To Fly The PC-21 - Singapore Air Force posted Fri Nov 3 2006 18:05:15 by Airimages
Congress To USAF-Plan To Keep The 144th At Fresno posted Sat Oct 7 2006 07:34:33 by FATFlyer
Long Island To Honor The F-14 posted Wed May 24 2006 23:44:18 by Dragon-wings
I Used To Think The Space Shuttle Was Huge! posted Sat Aug 20 2005 15:53:06 by ACAfan
US Navy To Sink The USS America posted Fri Mar 4 2005 03:30:32 by Boeing4ever
Want To Join The Usaf posted Wed Dec 1 2004 00:33:28 by USAF757300
Looking To Join The Air Force. posted Sat Sep 25 2004 20:52:00 by AATriple7
New Heavy-lift Transport To Replace The C-5? posted Tue Aug 31 2004 18:44:04 by N328KF
Russia In Negotiations To Join The ESA posted Fri May 21 2004 19:46:12 by Pelican
Questions To All The Air Force Guys posted Mon Nov 4 2002 06:23:15 by Polair

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format