747400sp
Topic Author
Posts: 3850
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2003 7:27 pm

Why So Many People In The USAF Dislike C-5?

Sun May 07, 2006 7:31 am

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
Posts: 1091
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2001 8:24 am

Why So Many People In The USAF Dislike C-5?

Sun May 07, 2006 8:57 am

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
 
seefivein
Posts: 130
Joined: Fri Apr 07, 2006 12:52 pm

Why So Many People In The USAF Dislike C-5?

Sun May 07, 2006 10:22 am

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 ....
 
2H4
Posts: 7960
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 11:11 pm

Why So Many People In The USAF Dislike C-5?

Sun May 07, 2006 12:05 pm




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
 
LAXintl
Posts: 20183
Joined: Wed May 24, 2000 12:12 pm

Why So Many People In The USAF Dislike C-5?

Sun May 07, 2006 1:10 pm

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
 
L-188
Posts: 29881
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 1999 11:27 am

Why So Many People In The USAF Dislike C-5?

Sun May 07, 2006 3:20 pm

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.
 
Lumberton
Posts: 4176
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:34 am

Why So Many People In The USAF Dislike C-5?

Sun May 07, 2006 9:06 pm

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
Posts: 696
Joined: Sun May 01, 2005 6:38 am

Why So Many People In The USAF Dislike C-5?

Sun May 07, 2006 9:08 pm

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.
 
MigFan
Posts: 710
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 12:50 am

Why So Many People In The USAF Dislike C-5?

Sun May 07, 2006 9:56 pm

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
UH-60's suck!!!
 
KC135R
Posts: 696
Joined: Sun May 01, 2005 6:38 am

Why So Many People In The USAF Dislike C-5?

Sun May 07, 2006 10:02 pm

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 avatar
Zkpilot
Posts: 3713
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:21 pm

Why So Many People In The USAF Dislike C-5?

Sun May 07, 2006 10:08 pm

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.
 
MigFan
Posts: 710
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 12:50 am

Why So Many People In The USAF Dislike C-5?

Sun May 07, 2006 10:08 pm

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
UH-60's suck!!!
 
KC135R
Posts: 696
Joined: Sun May 01, 2005 6:38 am

Why So Many People In The USAF Dislike C-5?

Sun May 07, 2006 10:09 pm

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.
 
MigFan
Posts: 710
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 12:50 am

Why So Many People In The USAF Dislike C-5?

Sun May 07, 2006 10:16 pm

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
UH-60's suck!!!
 
seefivein
Posts: 130
Joined: Fri Apr 07, 2006 12:52 pm

Why So Many People In The USAF Dislike C-5?

Sun May 07, 2006 10:21 pm

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.
 
KC135R
Posts: 696
Joined: Sun May 01, 2005 6:38 am

Why So Many People In The USAF Dislike C-5?

Sun May 07, 2006 10:25 pm

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.
 
A342
Posts: 4017
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 11:05 pm

Why So Many People In The USAF Dislike C-5?

Mon May 08, 2006 4:56 am

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.
 
KC135R
Posts: 696
Joined: Sun May 01, 2005 6:38 am

Why So Many People In The USAF Dislike C-5?

Mon May 08, 2006 6:33 am

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
Topic Author
Posts: 3850
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2003 7:27 pm

Why So Many People In The USAF Dislike C-5?

Mon May 08, 2006 7:35 am

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.
 
ContinentalFan
Posts: 343
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2000 2:47 am

Why So Many People In The USAF Dislike C-5?

Mon May 08, 2006 7:53 am

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?
 
KC135R
Posts: 696
Joined: Sun May 01, 2005 6:38 am

Why So Many People In The USAF Dislike C-5?

Mon May 08, 2006 9:13 am

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.
 
wingnut135
Posts: 124
Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2005 11:17 am

Why So Many People In The USAF Dislike C-5?

Mon May 08, 2006 3:06 pm

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!"
 
XC5Eng
Posts: 54
Joined: Tue Apr 04, 2006 2:10 am

Why So Many People In The USAF Dislike C-5?

Wed May 10, 2006 12:19 am

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 avatar
Zkpilot
Posts: 3713
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:21 pm

Why So Many People In The USAF Dislike C-5?

Wed May 10, 2006 3:38 pm

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.
 
747400sp
Topic Author
Posts: 3850
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2003 7:27 pm

Why So Many People In The USAF Dislike C-5?

Thu May 11, 2006 12:26 am

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.
 
KevinSmith
Posts: 626
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 9:08 am

RE: Why So Many People In The Usaf Dislike C-5?

Sun Feb 11, 2007 5:11 am

Quoting Seefivein (Reply 2):
Some are just Boeing all the way - no matter what.

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 McDonnell Douglas creations.
Learning to fly, but I ain't got wings.
 
FlyUSCG
Posts: 520
Joined: Sat Jun 03, 2006 5:29 pm

RE: Why So Many People In The Usaf Dislike C-5?

Sun Feb 11, 2007 8:30 am

Quoting MigFan (Reply 13):
Does AF1 stay outside?

Nope

Quoting Wingnut135 (Reply 21):
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

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 was getting it's forward underside completely replaced and a good chunk up the side too under the word "FORCE". It also had the rudder and all 4 (although I could only see 2) engines removed. The info tag on my photos say that I took them on June 9, 2006.
Go Trojans! Fight On!
 
Venus6971
Posts: 1415
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 1:55 pm

RE: Why So Many People In The Usaf Dislike C-5?

Sun Feb 11, 2007 2:55 pm

Quoting FlyUSCG (Reply 26):
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 was getting it's forward underside completely replaced and a good chunk up the side too under the word "FORCE". It also had the rudder and all 4 (although I could only see 2) engines removed. The info tag on my photos say that I took them on June 9, 2006.

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 the kneeling system for roll on cargo. Old story about how NASA spent millions on a pen that would wright in a zero g enviroment and Russians solved it by using a pencil. Everything else about the AN124 you can keep, no pallet system, use built in crane to move cargo about the fuselage. plus takes forever to pump gas on it plus the crews smell like bad vodka when they start sweating. Lockheed over engineered or goldplated the C-5, her design could have been much simpliar.
I would help you but it is not in the contract
 
zanl188
Posts: 3447
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2006 9:05 pm

RE: Why So Many People In The Usaf Dislike C-5?

Mon Feb 12, 2007 1:39 am

Quoting Venus6971 (Reply 27):
Everything else about the AN124 you can keep, no pallet system, use built in crane to move cargo about the fuselage.

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 sense. On a C-5 you push the pallets off onto a K-loader then take the K-loader back to the aerial port and push the pallets off on a hi-line dock or offload with a forklift. The Russians don't have large aerial ports so offload directly with a forklift or use the AN124s crane to offload directly to a truck. Not having a plethora of aerial port infrastructure significantly reduces the AN124s deployment footprint.

People also rag on the AN124 regarding the plywood floor... But the fact is the C-5 & C-17 require plywood shoring (to protect the floor) on some loads, the Russians just installed it in the aircraft vs requiring the airlift user to supply it as USAF does.

Pretty funny trying to make the two systems work together. When I was active duty USAF I handled a number of Russian jets & their crews always wanted us to do the offloads with our 10K standard forklifts (which had hi PSI tires designed for pavement not aircraft floors). We'd drive that forklift into the aircraft and everybody in the jet could hear that plywood cracking!! We had 10K all terrain forklifts (with lo PSI tires) but the Russians were skittish re: the height of forklift, the 10K AT being considerably taller than the 10K standard.
Legal considerations provided by: Dewey, Cheatum, and Howe
 
KevinSmith
Posts: 626
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 9:08 am

RE: Why So Many People In The Usaf Dislike C-5?

Mon Feb 12, 2007 2:44 am

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.
Learning to fly, but I ain't got wings.
 
wingnut135
Posts: 124
Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2005 11:17 am

RE: Why So Many People In The Usaf Dislike C-5?

Mon Feb 12, 2007 5:50 am

Quoting FlyUSCG (Reply 26):
Would this be the C-17 (10196?)

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 aborted the landing and flew back to Incirlik dirty (gear and flaps). After rereading my earlier post, I was wrong. It was both right main gear doors. We ended up helping where we could so that the plane would get off the ground before the 30 day rule kicked in. I still don't think I believe that Turkey would have enforced it, even if it is still around. And even now I don't truly beleive the 30 day rule exist(ed)(s).

I think the one you're referring to is the one that went off the runway in Iraq last year. Would like to see the pics though.

Wingnut
A good friend will get you out of jail. A real friend will be there with you saying, "Damn that was fun!"
 
zanl188
Posts: 3447
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2006 9:05 pm

RE: Why So Many People In The Usaf Dislike C-5?

Mon Feb 12, 2007 6:03 am

Quoting Wingnut135 (Reply 30):
We ended up helping where we could so that the plane would get off the ground before the 30 day rule kicked in. I still don't think I believe that Turkey would have enforced it, even if it is still around. And even now I don't truly beleive the 30 day rule exist(ed)(s).

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 left in the country longer than 90 days became the property of the Turkish Air Force, no exceptions. It's why there are no USAF aircraft permanently stationed there.

We had to get permission from the Turkish General Staff before we sent our equipment back to the US for overhaul because it was no longer USAF property. And when we got it back the TGS checked it quite carefully to make sure the same item had been returned.

There were also some tense moments with a HH-60 when the C-5 that was to haul it out of town went A3 (broke) near the HH-60s ninety day limit..

But like most countries in the middle east, the Turks expect you to dicker and it was possible to get quite the deal with a bottle of JD, not that I ever did that or saw it happen....
Legal considerations provided by: Dewey, Cheatum, and Howe
 
TropicBird
Posts: 432
Joined: Sat May 28, 2005 9:13 am

RE: Why So Many People In The Usaf Dislike C-5?

Mon Feb 12, 2007 6:49 am

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 programs are having problems....

________________________________________________________________________________

"The Air Force said last year it would stop proposing funds for C-17 while funneling money into the C-5 avionics modernization and reengining efforts. However, those two efforts are meeting technical and cost problems. The senior Air Force official acknowledges that the Air Force may need to re-examine its airlifter strategy as it eyes future budget cycles.

Despite the upgrades, "The C-5A isn't performing as well as we'd like it to," the official says. "To replace C-5A, right now the only airplane that makes any sense in the category is the C-17. We didn't explicitly say that because we'd have to do an analysis of alternatives."
 
FlyUSCG
Posts: 520
Joined: Sat Jun 03, 2006 5:29 pm

RE: Why So Many People In The Usaf Dislike C-5?

Mon Feb 12, 2007 8:25 am

Quoting Wingnut135 (Reply 30):
I think the one you're referring to is the one that went off the runway in Iraq last year. Would like to see the pics though.

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 myspace but I don't have anything that will load ONLY the picture.
Go Trojans! Fight On!
 
wingnut135
Posts: 124
Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2005 11:17 am

RE: Why So Many People In The Usaf Dislike C-5?

Mon Feb 12, 2007 9:54 am

Quoting FlyUSCG (Reply 33):
I was told it was in Afghanistan.

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 to this site and post them in a reply. Click "Add Images" and follow the directions, that's how I do it. We can access them then. I personally haven't tried to load pics to any other site.

Wingnut
A good friend will get you out of jail. A real friend will be there with you saying, "Damn that was fun!"
 
KevinSmith
Posts: 626
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 9:08 am

RE: Why So Many People In The Usaf Dislike C-5?

Mon Feb 12, 2007 10:02 am

Quoting FlyUSCG (Reply 33):
I was told it was in Afghanistan.

0196 did go off the runway at Bagram.
http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?storyID=123011269

http://www.af.mil/shared/media/photodb/photos/050806-F-0580G-003.JPG

It did go to Long Beach for repairs.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Jerry Search

Learning to fly, but I ain't got wings.
 
FlyUSCG
Posts: 520
Joined: Sat Jun 03, 2006 5:29 pm

RE: Why So Many People In The Usaf Dislike C-5?

Mon Feb 12, 2007 1:02 pm

Quoting Venus6971 (Reply 27):
How about some of those pics.

These are the only 2 I have. And they were a pain in the ass to get. But it's better than nothing...
Big version: Width: 896 Height: 672 File size: 81kb
Big version: Width: 896 Height: 672 File size: 74kb
Go Trojans! Fight On!
 
Venus6971
Posts: 1415
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 1:55 pm

RE: Why So Many People In The Usaf Dislike C-5?

Mon Feb 12, 2007 3:45 pm

Quoting FlyUSCG (Reply 36):
These are the only 2 I have. And they were a pain in the ass to get. But it's better than nothing...

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 to get their rivet pattern and holes aligned before they start shooting rivets

[Edited 2007-02-12 07:48:59]
I would help you but it is not in the contract
 
A342
Posts: 4017
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 11:05 pm

RE: Why So Many People In The Usaf Dislike C-5?

Mon Feb 12, 2007 9:41 pm

Quoting ZANL188 (Reply 28):
People also rag on the AN124 regarding the plywood floor... But the fact is the C-5 & C-17 require plywood shoring (to protect the floor) on some loads, the Russians just installed it in the aircraft vs requiring the airlift user to supply it as USAF does.

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 used ?

Quoting ZANL188 (Reply 28):
We'd drive that forklift into the aircraft and everybody in the jet could hear that plywood cracking!!

And then, what happened ?
Exceptions confirm the rule.
 
wingnut135
Posts: 124
Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2005 11:17 am

RE: Why So Many People In The Usaf Dislike C-5?

Mon Feb 12, 2007 10:29 pm

Quoting FlyUSCG (Reply 36):
These are the only 2 I have. And they were a pain in the ass to get. But it's better than nothing...

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, btw.  bigthumbsup 

Wingnut
A good friend will get you out of jail. A real friend will be there with you saying, "Damn that was fun!"
 
FlyUSCG
Posts: 520
Joined: Sat Jun 03, 2006 5:29 pm

RE: Why So Many People In The Usaf Dislike C-5?

Tue Feb 13, 2007 4:09 am

Quoting Wingnut135 (Reply 39):
Thanks for posting, good shots

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 and my other on the fence making sure I didn't get a face full or barbwire. I also have several pics of the first 2 C-17 prototype/test frames as well as the 717 prototype sitting right next to it from the other side of the field if you guys wanted to see those.
Go Trojans! Fight On!
 
CF188A
Posts: 680
Joined: Sun May 07, 2006 12:27 am

RE: Why So Many People In The Usaf Dislike C-5?

Tue Feb 13, 2007 7:36 am

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 as opposed to the freezing cold C17 so they say.... I would not know from experience
Dream as if you'll live forever. Live as if you'll die tomorrow~ RIP ... LJFM
 
zanl188
Posts: 3447
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2006 9:05 pm

RE: Why So Many People In The Usaf Dislike C-5?

Tue Feb 13, 2007 8:18 am

Quoting A342 (Reply 38):
I thought the An-124 has a titanium floor ?

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 weight to prevent this. The Russians attach the plywood semipermanently to the structure and side to side/front to back - whereas USAF only uses it as and where required.

I'm not metalurgist... but isn't titanium supposed to be tougher than aluminum? If the floor is in fact titanium they are very protective of it....

Quoting A342 (Reply 38):
And then, what happened ?

We were concerned... the crew was not...
Legal considerations provided by: Dewey, Cheatum, and Howe
 
echster
Posts: 393
Joined: Thu Sep 02, 2004 4:01 pm

RE: Why So Many People In The Usaf Dislike C-5?

Tue Feb 13, 2007 10:32 am

Quoting CF188A (Reply 41):
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 as opposed to the freezing cold C17 so they say.... I would not know from experience

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 seating area towards the rear of the aircraft that sits above the cargo area. The ones I've been on have had really nice seats with fairly good pitch. Another thing cool about that is the seats face the rear of the aircraft so you're pushed out of your seat on departure and arrival.
 
echster
Posts: 393
Joined: Thu Sep 02, 2004 4:01 pm

RE: Why So Many People In The Usaf Dislike C-5?

Tue Feb 13, 2007 10:39 am

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 they want to do, because of the cost problems and the upgrades not really providing a benefit, is put the A models to pasture at DMA. Congress hasn't been high on this plan in the past because of the unit locations, etc. Typical politic reasons. Now with the overruns reaching the 50% level and requiring reporting to Congress, they want to drag it back to Congress.

The plan is to scrap the A models, RERP and/or AMP the other models, and produce the C-17B. Boeing says the B model would cost them about $450 million and would provide modifications that could let them land and depart from even shorter runways/landing strips than the A model.

Edit:

OK, OK, I've found the link:

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...erruns-spur-airlifter-rethink.html
 
wingnut135
Posts: 124
Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2005 11:17 am

RE: Why So Many People In The Usaf Dislike C-5?

Tue Feb 13, 2007 12:56 pm

Quoting FlyUSCG (Reply 40):
I also have several pics of the first 2 C-17 prototype/test frames as well as the 717 prototype sitting right next to it from the other side of the field if you guys wanted to see those.

Maybe in a new thread? We're supposed to be dogging the C-5 here. Which isn't happening too much  smile 

Quoting Echster (Reply 43):
The C-17 is equivalent to an open bay with uncomfortable seats on the sides facing the middle

Especially if you're on one of the early blocks that haven't been retrofitted yet. Fiberglass seats, what the hell were they thinking? Not that the nylon ones are any more comfortable. Speaking to a lot of people who have made long trips on them, everyone agrees that they are the most comfortable when they're headed home, doesn't matter what type of aircraft. (I was that guy in Germany/Turkey/Spain that made it a point to tell everyone "Welcome home".)

Wingnut
A good friend will get you out of jail. A real friend will be there with you saying, "Damn that was fun!"
 
seefivein
Posts: 130
Joined: Fri Apr 07, 2006 12:52 pm

RE: Why So Many People In The Usaf Dislike C-5?

Wed Feb 14, 2007 3:38 am

Quoting KevinSmith (Reply 25):
Quoting Seefivein (Reply 2):
Some are just Boeing all the way - no matter what.

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 McDonnell Douglas creations.

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?
 
A342
Posts: 4017
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 11:05 pm

RE: Why So Many People In The Usaf Dislike C-5?

Wed Feb 14, 2007 6:04 am

Quoting ZANL188 (Reply 42):
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 weight to prevent this. The Russians attach the plywood semipermanently to the structure and side to side/front to back - whereas USAF only uses it as and where required.

Ok, thank you !

Quoting ZANL188 (Reply 42):
We were concerned... the crew was not...

LOL !  bigthumbsup 
Exceptions confirm the rule.
 
Galaxy5007
Posts: 637
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2005 12:06 pm

RE: Why So Many People In The Usaf Dislike C-5?

Wed Feb 14, 2007 3:53 pm

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 fleet of AMP birds. The thing is with the A-Models, is that they are finding alot of stress and corrosion cracks in key areas, like the skin, and the main support structures supporting the visor, and aft ramp. Its been taking nearly a year to repair half of these jets, and there are about 7 that are either restricted or grounded, awaiting in line for depot repairs. In fact, a jet from Stewart returned from depot back in October, and is waiting until April, grounded, to fix hatch cracks. Another jet, from Lackland, just got finished with serious depot repairs, and they found horrible corrosion in places as well as cracks in hatch doors that are causing pressurization leaks....now this jet(0445) is waiting yet again to go back to depot...for another 5-9 month repair process. What they should do is keep the B-models, the two C-models and 69-0024, since its already converted to an M model, and then pick the 8 best A-models and keep the fleet at 60 total. Boneyard the rest, mothballing 5 or so, in case incidents like 4059 happen. Some of the B-models have more flight hours than the A models. With the max hours on a C-5B being near 19K and the max on an A-model being 24600, The A-models are having too much downtime to keep a lead on the Bs. Get rid of them. Give the units that lose C-5s the C-17s. In fact, If they do scrap the As, I wouldn't be surprised if the B and M models go to Guard and reserve units, while Dover and Travis load up on more 17s.

Oh and one other thing off subject, 01-0196, is out flying again. It came through yesterday at Pope AFB, NC.
 
wannabe
Posts: 652
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 1999 3:37 am

RE: Why So Many People In The Usaf Dislike C-5?

Wed Feb 14, 2007 11:52 pm

Quoting Galaxy5007 (Reply 48):
The A-models are having too much downtime to keep a lead on the Bs. Get rid of them. Give the units that lose C-5s the C-17s

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?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: AvSafety46 and 2 guests