474218
Topic Author
Posts: 4510
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 12:27 pm

C-5 Modernization Program

Sat Jun 21, 2008 11:00 pm

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
 
ContnlEliteCMH
Posts: 1376
Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 8:19 am

RE: C-5 Modernization Program

Mon Jun 23, 2008 2:04 am

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 avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11002
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: C-5 Modernization Program

Mon Jun 23, 2008 2:33 am

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.
 
ebj1248650
Posts: 1517
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 6:17 am

RE: C-5 Modernization Program

Mon Jun 23, 2008 7:25 am



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!
 
Galaxy5007
Posts: 637
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2005 12:06 pm

RE: C-5 Modernization Program

Mon Jun 23, 2008 8:36 pm

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 avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11002
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: C-5 Modernization Program

Fri Jun 27, 2008 2:37 am



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 avatar
N328KF
Posts: 5810
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 3:50 am

RE: C-5 Modernization Program

Fri Jun 27, 2008 3:04 am



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.' -Theodore Roosevelt
 
fridgmus
Posts: 1296
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:28 am

RE: C-5 Modernization Program

Fri Jun 27, 2008 3:49 am



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!
 
HanginOut
Posts: 521
Joined: Sun May 29, 2005 3:24 am

RE: C-5 Modernization Program

Fri Jun 27, 2008 10:06 pm



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 avatar
N328KF
Posts: 5810
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 3:50 am

RE: C-5 Modernization Program

Sat Jun 28, 2008 3:02 am



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.' -Theodore Roosevelt
 
zanl188
Posts: 3443
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2006 9:05 pm

RE: C-5 Modernization Program

Sat Jun 28, 2008 6:58 pm

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
 
TheSonntag
Posts: 4303
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2005 7:23 pm

RE: C-5 Modernization Program

Sat Jun 28, 2008 8:58 pm

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.
 
Galaxy5007
Posts: 637
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2005 12:06 pm

RE: C-5 Modernization Program

Mon Jun 30, 2008 3:34 pm



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.
 
AWACSooner
Posts: 1772
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 12:35 am

RE: C-5 Modernization Program

Tue Jul 01, 2008 12:21 am



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

Like new engines for my plane?
 
tf39
Posts: 81
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 12:43 am

RE: C-5 Modernization Program

Tue Jul 01, 2008 4:56 am



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
 
Venus6971
Posts: 1415
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 1:55 pm

RE: C-5 Modernization Program

Tue Jul 01, 2008 5:39 am



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
 
Galaxy5007
Posts: 637
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2005 12:06 pm

RE: C-5 Modernization Program

Wed Jul 02, 2008 1:44 pm

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?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: mxaxai and 4 guests