Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
C-5 Modernization Program  
User currently offline474218 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6340 posts, RR: 9
Posted (6 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 3501 times:

Artical in the 06/212/09 AV Press on the C-5 the modernization program. Short on details but worth a read:


http://avpress.com/n/21/0621_s3.hts

16 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineContnlEliteCMH From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 1458 posts, RR: 44
Reply 1, posted (6 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 3318 times:

I spent 18 months at The Home Depot doing contract work. From the 16th floor I could watch C-5's coming and going with regularity. The C-5's flights weren't a reminder of the high-tech work going on in Marietta; that was reserved for the F-22 being chased by a couple of 16's. But a little web research said that the C-5's were part of the high-tech work, too.


Christianity. Islam. Hinduism. Anthropogenic Global Warming. All are matters of faith!
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12138 posts, RR: 51
Reply 2, posted (6 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 3301 times:

I don't know if we get many more C-5Ms, or not. The costs overruns are really eating up money that can be used elsewear.

User currently offlineEBJ1248650 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1932 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (6 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 3249 times:



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 2):
I don't know if we get many more C-5Ms, or not. The costs overruns are really eating up money that can be used elsewear.

If we don't get the C-5Ms, what's the next viable solution? How long will the C-5 fleet, as a whole, last without the update for the C-5B? More C-17s on the horizon?



Dare to dream; dream big!
User currently offlineGalaxy5007 From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 626 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (6 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 3149 times:

The rest of the Bs and two Cs are already approved for funding for the RERP, so we will get them...regardless. The upgrades were cancelled on the A models because of the cost over runs, since the A model they inducted has had so many problems in the upgrade process. Both the Ms (99 and 111 aka, 6013 and 6025) have been doing very well in the test flight program, and have proven very reliable, especially when it comes to powerplant issues. The problems come from the portions they did NOT upgrade, such as the unreliability of the hydraulic supply system, dewar system (nitro), and environmental systems.

9024, the A-model, has had several structural problems, such as the crown skin, cargo ramp end fittings, and forward box beams (all which are problems on all of the A models, and will appear on the two Cs as well in time). The A and B models were made with different aluminum alloys. The B models were made of a newer alloy that wasn't available at the time of the A model production. Pacer Wing solved the wing cracking problem, but, didn't solve any other airframe problems, that showed up over time from wear and tear.


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12138 posts, RR: 51
Reply 5, posted (6 years 2 months 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 2933 times:



Quoting EBJ1248650 (Reply 3):
More C-17s on the horizon?

Boeing has talked about a C-17B for years now. It is a strech of the C-17A.


User currently offlineN328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6484 posts, RR: 3
Reply 6, posted (6 years 2 months 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 2920 times:



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 5):
Boeing has talked about a C-17B for years now. It is a strech of the C-17A.

WSJ reported on this last year. They didn't say anything about a stretch, but they did say that it would be able to land on sandy beaches. They made it sound like Boeing would simply introduce the B variant inline on the production process.



When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
User currently offlineFridgmus From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 1442 posts, RR: 10
Reply 7, posted (6 years 2 months 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 2909 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 5):
Boeing has talked about a C-17B for years now. It is a strech of the C-17A.



Quoting N328KF (Reply 6):
WSJ reported on this last year. They didn't say anything about a stretch, but they did say that it would be able to land on sandy beaches. They made it sound like Boeing would simply introduce the B variant inline on the production process.

Anybody have any idea when (or if) we'll see a C-17B?

Thanks,

F



The Lockheed Super Constellation, the REAL Queen of the Skies!
User currently offlineHanginOut From Austria, joined May 2005, 550 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (6 years 2 months 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 2814 times:



Quoting Fridgmus (Reply 7):
Anybody have any idea when (or if) we'll see a C-17B?

I guess that would depend on whether the C-17 is still in production (which means they could probably do it within a few years), or if they decide to offer it as an upgrade option (in which case that will be many years down the road - at which time they will need to upgrade the current birds).



Dreaming of the day I can work for an airline
User currently offlineN328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6484 posts, RR: 3
Reply 9, posted (6 years 2 months 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 2724 times:



Quoting HanginOut (Reply 8):
I guess that would depend on whether the C-17 is still in production (which means they could probably do it within a few years), or if they decide to offer it as an upgrade option (in which case that will be many years down the road - at which time they will need to upgrade the current birds).

The sad fact is that the C-17s are getting pounded. They're high-use birds, both because they're very useful and the fact that they've got a good dispatch rate means they're able to be in the air a lot. The early units will probably have to be given heavy maintenance at about their mid-life point, which is only about eight years out.



When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
User currently offlineZANL188 From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 3519 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (6 years 2 months 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 2654 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

How is the hydraulic accumulator problem affecting C-5 readiness now? I understand 9 Bs were grounded waiting on the redesigned accumulator.

Will the accumulator upgrade be done inconjunction with the M upgrade or is it simple enough that it can be done at home station?



Legal considerations provided by: Dewey, Cheatum, and Howe
User currently offlineTheSonntag From Germany, joined Jun 2005, 3570 posts, RR: 29
Reply 11, posted (6 years 2 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 2627 times:

Does the US Military use AN124s for Charters? Germany does, and it is a real shame that the GDR did not have any Il76s or An124s, because we could use them today (although I am sure that some short-sighted politician would have sold them many years ago anyway). They are, of course, no viable alternative, but I think it is quite ironic that the German troops in Afghanistan must rely on russian equipment.

User currently offlineGalaxy5007 From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 626 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (6 years 2 months 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 2465 times:



Quoting ZANL188 (Reply 10):
How is the hydraulic accumulator problem affecting C-5 readiness now? I understand 9 Bs were grounded waiting on the redesigned accumulator.

Will the accumulator upgrade be done inconjunction with the M upgrade or is it simple enough that it can be done at home station?

The accumulator issue occurred on one aircraft, and happened on another 20 years prior. Naturally, they are over reacting, and I hear they are releasing a TCTO to remove all the A model APU accumulators from service and have only the right ones installed on aircraft (with the B-model style). Of course, there aren't enough B-model style accumulators, so planes will end up grounded for no reason.

For those who don't know, a Travis aircraft (a B model) had the A-model APU Accumulator installed launch out of the side of the aircraft, and over the wing landing in front of the plane. The cause was casing failure. The aircraft was just chilling on the ramp, doing nothing, nobody aboard, no one hurt.

In my opinion, it was one of those freak accidents. I agree a new accumulator should be put in service instead of rebuilding the A-model ones over and over again (which is what they do now, and is why the plane has so many problems cause of rebuilt parts instead of new ones). However, I don't think removing all of the A-model accumulators would be a smart move, and grounding the fleet over it is retarded. Again, its one of those freak accidents, and AMC is over-reacting to it.

This is clearly a home station TCTO. We changed them all the time for leaking, and doesn't need any assistance from depot teams. Its just a matter of getting the new accumulator. Change them out as they get the new accumulator, but don't ground the fleet while they don't even have a design on the table yet!

The only Bs that are grounded are in AMP mod, or in PDM...which is all normal maintenance. Several A models are grounded, but for skin cracks, box beams, and end fitting cracks...not related to the accumulator issue.

I should mention as well, the APU Accumulator is used for two things, APU start, and MLG emergency extension. After RERP, it will only be used for MLGEE. The new APUs are electric start.


The C-17B has been proposed, but no action has been taken by the USAF to aquire it. It was explained at the Charleston Air Expo back in April the improvements from the A model. It would be a little bit longer, and would have some improved systems. However, its not much of a night and day comparison from the A-model, which is probably why its idea is gathering dust.


User currently offlineAWACSooner From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 1902 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (6 years 2 months 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 2388 times:



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 2):
The costs overruns are really eating up money that can be used elsewear.

Like new engines for my plane?


User currently offlineTF39 From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 110 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (6 years 2 months 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 2336 times:



Quoting ZANL188 (Reply 10):
The sad fact is that the C-17s are getting pounded. They're high-use birds, both because they're very useful and the fact that they've got a good dispatch rate means they're able to be in the air a lot.

Just out of curiousity, does anyone know what is the average total flight hours per C-17 versus the C-5B? Thanks  Smile


User currently offlineVenus6971 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 1442 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (6 years 2 months 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 2324 times:



Quoting Galaxy5007 (Reply 12):
I should mention as well, the APU Accumulator is used for two things, APU start, and MLG emergency extension. After RERP, it will only be used for MLGEE. The new APUs are electric start.

I wonder if this is going to affect the E-3 fleet since they use the same APU with 2 start accumulators.



I would help you but it is not in the contract
User currently offlineGalaxy5007 From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 626 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (6 years 2 months 20 hours ago) and read 2168 times:

The C-17s average around 10-11K hours, where the C-5Bs are around 16K hours. The C-17 is flown a heck of alot more, but there are also about a hundred more than there are C-5Bs (47 B models, vs. 140 C-17s (Not counting the newest ones since they only have from 16 hours to 4K hours)

When 4059 went down, it had 15,792.8 hours on it.
86-0013 and 25 are both in the 14K hour range due to the down time they've incurred through AMP and RERP. They are M models now anyhow.

The A-models only average around 19K hours.

Quoting Venus6971 (Reply 15):
wonder if this is going to affect the E-3 fleet since they use the same APU with 2 start accumulators.

The question is, do they use the same accumulator? I don't know much about the E-3s...do they even have two APUs?


Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic C-5 Modernization Program
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...
F35 Program In Trouble? posted Thu Dec 6 2007 15:35:37 by XT6Wagon
VH-71 Presidential Helicopter Program In Trouble. posted Tue Nov 6 2007 07:41:30 by USAF336TFS
F-35 Program Status posted Sat Oct 13 2007 08:48:24 by EBJ1248650
A Placeholder Manned Space Program posted Sat Sep 22 2007 04:42:05 by Cloudy
Whatever Happened To B-52 Reengine Program posted Fri Sep 14 2007 21:27:21 by DAYflyer
TV Program: Space Station And Beyond posted Thu Jan 4 2007 15:41:17 by Mymorningsong
BAE Tarantis Ucav Demonstrator Program Unveiled posted Thu Dec 7 2006 15:58:21 by RichardPrice
A-10 Service Life Extension Program posted Thu Aug 31 2006 14:41:51 by Lumberton
Revolutionary Aircraft Development Program (1945~) posted Tue Aug 22 2006 08:48:47 by AislepathLight
"Orion" Said To Be Name Of NASA's CEV Program posted Fri Jul 21 2006 10:42:36 by AerospaceFan

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format