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

C-5M 86-0013 Unofficially Sets 41 World Records

Tue Sep 15, 2009 4:33 pm

http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123167592

Results have to be verified still; but this has been a month under the covers planning.
 
Venus6971
Posts: 1415
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 1:55 pm

RE: C-5M 86-0013 Unofficially Sets 41 World Records

Tue Sep 15, 2009 7:01 pm

Ok now quickturn it and do it again and surge that bad boy. Stick in the schedule and fly it everyday and see how it likes it.
I would help you but it is not in the contract
 
Galaxy5007
Topic Author
Posts: 637
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2005 12:06 pm

RE: C-5M 86-0013 Unofficially Sets 41 World Records

Tue Sep 15, 2009 7:13 pm



Quoting Venus6971 (Reply 1):
fly it everyday

They have actually done this for the most part on local flights. The down time that its been having are either scheduled, repairing bird strikes, or updating software. Seem that they have gotten most of the leaks fixed finally. They are trying to get 9024 up to par before next month when they start OT&E October 1st.
 
prebennorholm
Posts: 6418
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2000 6:25 am

RE: C-5M 86-0013 Unofficially Sets 41 World Records

Tue Sep 15, 2009 10:50 pm

C-5M unofficially sets 41 wordl records...

Quote: The results are pending certification by the National Aeronautic Association and should be finalized in about a month, said Kristan Maynard, the NAA official observer who documented the world record attempt. The NAA is the record-keeper for U.S. aviation.

Assuming that Mr. Kristian Maynard has done his home work, and the records are approved by the NAA board (National Aeronautic Association) in Washington DC, then the NAA will submit the claims to the FAI (Federation Auronautique International) in Lousanne, Switzerland.

And when the FAI finds no mistakes made according to their record rules book, then those records will be approved by the FAI. And then no aviation world record can be more official than that!

A few years back a B-1B set a similar long string of world records, but they were more "speed with payload over distance" oriented thean this one which is "climb and altitude" oriented.

Further back, shortly before the SR-71 Blackbird was retired it also set a long string of world records. The USAF obviously didn't want to unvail its ultimate performance figures while it was still in service.

During the last 60 years the Americans and the Russians have constantly competed about having the highest number of current world records in the FAI record books in Lousanne.

You can check out current records at http://records.fai.org/general_aviation/

Since there is not one single world record yet in the caterory of planes with take off weight above 500,000 kg, then we can assume that the Europeans (Airbus A380) are less eager to produce world records.
Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs
 
Venus6971
Posts: 1415
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 1:55 pm

RE: C-5M 86-0013 Unofficially Sets 41 World Records

Wed Sep 16, 2009 4:33 am

http://www.airforce-magazine.com/Fea...ation/Pages/Box091509retiring.aspx
Just read this about the additional C-17s being bought that poor performing C-5A's will be retired.
I would help you but it is not in the contract
 
speedygonzales
Posts: 521
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2007 5:01 pm

RE: C-5M 86-0013 Unofficially Sets 41 World Records

Wed Sep 16, 2009 8:29 am



Quoting Prebennorholm (Reply 3):
Since there is not one single world record yet in the caterory of planes with take off weight above 500,000 kg, then we can assume that the Europeans (Airbus A380) are less eager to produce world records.

Huh? I find a whole bunch, all held by the An-225.
Las Malvinas son Argentinas
 
Galaxy5007
Topic Author
Posts: 637
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2005 12:06 pm

RE: C-5M 86-0013 Unofficially Sets 41 World Records

Wed Sep 16, 2009 6:08 pm



Quoting Venus6971 (Reply 4):
Just read this about the additional C-17s being bought that poor performing C-5A's will be retired.

Yeah, alot of talk has spread over at Stewart IAP about replacing their fleet of C-5As to C-17s. I don't think they are going to retire all of the A models, but there are a couple dozen that really just need to go. The really bad ones are spread out in the fleet. Stewart has the worst C-5A around (cough8212cough). I don't think any other jet can match up to its low airframe hours and high down time. I think its going to be spotty on which jets are going to go bye bye. I think the ones that have already been reskinned, repaired with the CBBF and AMPed are safe at this point. That still leaves plenty to go down the tube. I wouldn't be surprised if Wright Patterson trys to get 17s next, or even Travis to give up their Bs and Cs. This will indeed, be interesting!
 
User avatar
chrisnh
Posts: 3350
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 1999 3:59 am

RE: C-5M 86-0013 Unofficially Sets 41 World Records

Thu Sep 17, 2009 12:30 am

Galaxy...you are a great source of information on all things C-5.

What is the composition of the fleet at Westover these days?

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

RE: C-5M 86-0013 Unofficially Sets 41 World Records

Thu Sep 17, 2009 2:33 am



Quoting ChrisNH (Reply 7):
What is the composition of the fleet at Westover these days?

I think I might have OCD of the C-5, lol.

Westover has 16 C-5Bs, all AMP modified. They are also doing Minor ISOs for the entire C-5 fleet (sharing that responsibility with Stewart). Dover is handling the Major ISOs.

With the possible retirements coming, I hope everyone starts catching the A models on camera more often before they go bye bye. I've been collecting the tail shots for 3 years now, and there are still a couple that I don't have...I just hope I get them before they get decomissioned!
 
prebennorholm
Posts: 6418
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2000 6:25 am

RE: C-5M 86-0013 Unofficially Sets 41 World Records

Fri Sep 18, 2009 2:04 am



Quoting SpeedyGonzales (Reply 5):
Quoting Prebennorholm (Reply 3):
Since there is not one single world record yet in the caterory of planes with take off weight above 500,000 kg, then we can assume that the Europeans (Airbus A380) are less eager to produce world records.

Huh? I find a whole bunch, all held by the An-225.

Right, the An-225 holds about a hundred world records in the >500 tons category. I don't know how I mistreated my browser to find none. Sorry!

All the C-5M records claims can now be studied at http://records.fai.org/data?c=3 - click on id numbers 15547 to 15587 on the right hand side of the page.

From all these record claims we can see that the C-5M climbed from brake release to 12,000 m altitude or roughly FL390 in 23 minutes and 59 seconds with an 80,000 kg payload. That's pretty impressive.
Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs
 
Max Q
Posts: 5634
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:40 pm

RE: C-5M 86-0013 Unofficially Sets 41 World Records

Sat Sep 19, 2009 5:58 am



Quoting Prebennorholm (Reply 9):

From all these record claims we can see that the C-5M climbed from brake release to 12,000 m altitude or roughly FL390 in 23 minutes and 59 seconds with an 80,000 kg payload. That's pretty impressive.

I wonder how the 744 Freighter's performance with a similar payload would compare ?
The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
 
User avatar
747classic
Posts: 1970
Joined: Sat Aug 15, 2009 9:13 am

RE: C-5M 86-0013 Unofficially Sets 41 World Records

Sat Sep 19, 2009 9:16 am

Quoting Max Q (Reply 10):

I wonder how the 744 Freighter's performance with a similar payload would compare ?

And the 747-8F ?
IMHO, Boeing can improve these records easily during the certification of the 747-8F
If the certification team can combine it with the actual test-flying, Boeing can do the extra effort, for PR reasons.
But I don't think they are interested to trow away a lot of money at this difficult times for some record hunting.

[Edited 2009-09-19 02:19:26]
Operating a twin over the ocean, you're always one engine failure from a total emergency.
 
JohnM
Posts: 379
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2001 12:35 pm

RE: C-5M 86-0013 Unofficially Sets 41 World Records

Tue Sep 22, 2009 12:08 am

I bet an Evergreen 741 would give the M a run for the money. That won't work.... the 747s are too busy flying all over the place at max MTOW.....Maybe Myth Busters can do a 747/ C-5M challenge segment.
 
HaveBlue
Posts: 2107
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2004 3:01 pm

RE: C-5M 86-0013 Unofficially Sets 41 World Records

Tue Sep 22, 2009 12:27 am



Quoting JohnM (Reply 12):
Maybe Myth Busters can do a 747/ C-5M challenge segment

But that's just a challenge, there is no myth related to that comparison to bust. Wish there were, that is a pretty cool show.
Here Here for Severe Clear!
 
TropicBird
Posts: 432
Joined: Sat May 28, 2005 9:13 am

RE: C-5M 86-0013 Unofficially Sets 41 World Records

Tue Sep 22, 2009 5:59 pm

It sounds like the RERP (C-5M) program may be on the chopping block again.

C-5 upgrade might not fly in Congress

http://aimpoints.hq.af.mil/display.cfm?id=35682
 
prebennorholm
Posts: 6418
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2000 6:25 am

RE: C-5M 86-0013 Unofficially Sets 41 World Records

Tue Sep 22, 2009 10:47 pm



Quoting JohnM (Reply 12):
I bet an Evergreen 741 would give the M a run for the money. That won't work.... the 747s are too busy flying all over the place at max MTOW.....Maybe Myth Busters can do a 747/ C-5M challenge segment.

Honestly I don't see any 747 version which is able to climb to 12,000m (close to 40,000 feet, 39,474 to be exact) in 24 minutes. And do it with a 80,000kg payload (176,000lbs) which corrensponds to roughly 900 pax.

You can put any number from 100 and up behind 747, and it won't work, no way! And why should it be able to do it? It was designed for something else. It is for instance some 10% faster than the rather slow C-5.

But the C-5M did it.

Since these records were in the category 400,000 to 500,000kg TOW, then the weight at brake realease had to be at least 400,001kg (881,000lbs). Only the 747-400ER has a MTOW sleightly exceeding 400,000kg, so that is the only 747 version (except the yet to fly -800) which can even play in the same record category.
Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs
 
Venus6971
Posts: 1415
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 1:55 pm

RE: C-5M 86-0013 Unofficially Sets 41 World Records

Wed Sep 23, 2009 2:15 am



Quoting Prebennorholm (Reply 15):
But the C-5M did it.

Since these records were in the category 400,000 to 500,000kg TOW, then the weight at brake realease had to be at least 400,001kg (881,000lbs). Only the 747-400ER has a MTOW sleightly exceeding 400,000kg, so that is the only 747 version (except the yet to fly -800) which can even play in the same record category.


I am wondering if the Russians will make an attempt with a AN-224 or AN-124. The 748 attempting would be a great sales pitch.
I would help you but it is not in the contract
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 13827
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: C-5M 86-0013 Unofficially Sets 41 World Records

Wed Sep 23, 2009 3:35 am



Quoting TropicBird (Reply 14):
It sounds like the RERP (C-5M) program may be on the chopping block again.

C-5 upgrade might not fly in Congress

The meat of the article is, "The administration requested $606.9 million for C-5 modernization, but the House committee cut $56.6 million as "funding ahead of need," while the Senate panel cut $45.1 million for the same reason.".

So Congress is holding back 10% of the funds yet the AF web site is in a panic.

It does seem that the A models will be in the desert before the avionics upgrades happen, so perhaps it doesn't make much sense to upgrade them, does it?
Inspiration, move me brightly!
 
tf39
Posts: 81
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 12:43 am

RE: C-5M 86-0013 Unofficially Sets 41 World Records

Wed Sep 23, 2009 6:04 am



Quoting Prebennorholm (Reply 15):
Since these records were in the category 400,000 to 500,000kg TOW, then the weight at brake realease had to be at least 400,001kg (881,000lbs).

Hi - I went to the link you sent earlier (cool link btw) and for record 15587 the subclass shows "C-1s (Landplanes: take off weight 250 000 to 300 000 kg)"

What I was thinking is this C-5 was not fully loaded with fuel. Just guessing here but probably less than 120K pounds of fuel which would fit into that category?

empty weight: 374,000 lbs
cargo: 176,000 lbs
---------------------------
total ZFW: 550,000 (I think that's quite a bit below max ZFW depending upon g's used to calculate)

So for a 1.5 hour flight, it doesn't say how much fuel they put on board but I'd doubt if it was filled to approach MTOW. If it was, THAT would be extremelly impressive! But even loaded to a takeoff weight of 650-700K lbs, it's still very impressive. Given that I wonder what the 747-400F or 747-8 would be able to do for the same takeoff weight?

Also, any idea what the weight of the cargo was lifted to 2000 meters?
 
Galaxy5007
Topic Author
Posts: 637
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2005 12:06 pm

RE: C-5M 86-0013 Unofficially Sets 41 World Records

Wed Sep 23, 2009 5:08 pm



Quoting TF39 (Reply 18):
Also, any idea what the weight of the cargo was lifted to 2000 meters?

176,610 lbs was the cargo weight.

I don't think they were aiming for max MTOW during this attempt. However, I agree, that a full fuel load, and a maximum wartime or beyond payload weight would be a record setter in itself. I wonder if they will attempt that or not. I don't think they will anytime soon as they are going to start OT&E next week.
 
prebennorholm
Posts: 6418
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2000 6:25 am

RE: C-5M 86-0013 Unofficially Sets 41 World Records

Wed Sep 23, 2009 5:18 pm



Quoting Prebennorholm (Reply 15):
Since these records were in the category 400,000 to 500,000kg TOW...



Quoting TF39 (Reply 18):
Hi - I went to the link you sent earlier (cool link btw) and for record 15587 the subclass shows "C-1s (Landplanes: take off weight 250 000 to 300 000 kg)"

Sorry, my bad, it was in the 250,000 to 300,000kg category. That changes the whole picture, and it certainly gives the 747 a posibility to compete.

Quoting TF39 (Reply 18):
Also, any idea what the weight of the cargo was lifted to 2000 meters?

I am pretty sure that all 41 records were broken in just one flight, a flight with 80,036kg payload. The B-1B and SR-71 have earlier broken such a whole burst of records in just one flight.

When records were broken also in the 35,000kg, 40,000kg etc. categories, and not just the 80,000kg category, then it is simply because 80,036 is greater than all these numbers, and no plane has previously performned better with 35,000 or 40,000kg etc.

Quoting TF39 (Reply 18):
So for a 1.5 hour flight, it doesn't say how much fuel they put on board but I'd doubt if it was filled to approach MTOW.

We can be pretty sure that it carried the absolute minimum fuel needed for that climb to 12,532m and land again. with ZFW at 550,000lbs it was already qualifying for the 250,000 to 300,000kg category with practically no fuel.
Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs
 
JohnM
Posts: 379
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2001 12:35 pm

RE: C-5M 86-0013 Unofficially Sets 41 World Records

Wed Sep 23, 2009 9:13 pm

747 classic. RR power about the same thrust as the C-5M. The 744 almost 10,000 lbs more thrust per engine than the M. The 744 would easily best the M record attempt. The 748 would be competitive using only 3 engines. On top of that, the 747 would do it all day, every day. I don't think the 747 world cares about some PR attempt, they don't need PR, the results tell the tale.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 13827
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: C-5M 86-0013 Unofficially Sets 41 World Records

Wed Sep 23, 2009 9:15 pm



Quoting JohnM (Reply 21):
I don't think the 747 world cares about some PR attempt, they don't need PR, the results tell the tale.

Yes, and showing up the USAF probably isn't a wise business decision.
Inspiration, move me brightly!
 
User avatar
747classic
Posts: 1970
Joined: Sat Aug 15, 2009 9:13 am

RE: C-5M 86-0013 Unofficially Sets 41 World Records

Thu Sep 24, 2009 8:39 am

For the record braking flight during certification of the 747-8 the following weights are involved :

Estimated OEW = 421,200 lb (191,100 kg)
MZFW = 717,000 lb (325,000 kg)
MTOW = 975,000 lb (442,000 kg)


Payload = 177.000 lb (80.000 kg)
Actual ZFW = 421,200 (191,100) + 177.000 (80.000) = 598,200 lb (271,100 kg)
Estimated T/O fuel = 61800 lb (28.000 kg)

Actual TOW = 660.000 lb (299,100 kg)

This will be a rocket T/O and climb to 12000m , with all FWD boostpump low press lights illuminated, due low fuel load.
We will see if Boeing wants some positive PR.

[Edited 2009-09-24 02:07:52]

[Edited 2009-09-24 02:08:42]

[Edited 2009-09-24 02:11:22]
Operating a twin over the ocean, you're always one engine failure from a total emergency.
 
Max Q
Posts: 5634
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:40 pm

RE: C-5M 86-0013 Unofficially Sets 41 World Records

Fri Sep 25, 2009 9:26 am



Quoting Prebennorholm (Reply 9):

From all these record claims we can see that the C-5M climbed from brake release to 12,000 m altitude or roughly FL390 in 23 minutes and 59 seconds with an 80,000 kg payload. That's pretty impressive.

Not bad but a 744F could beat it, some unofficial research comes up with a time of 16 minutes to FL390 with the same payload and a take off weight of 600,000 lbs.
The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
 
bhill
Posts: 1306
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2001 8:28 am

RE: C-5M 86-0013 Unofficially Sets 41 World Records

Wed Sep 30, 2009 9:12 pm

Wouldn't runway length come into play with a C-5/B747 competition?
Carpe Pices
 
Max Q
Posts: 5634
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:40 pm

RE: C-5M 86-0013 Unofficially Sets 41 World Records

Thu Oct 01, 2009 5:09 am



Quoting 747classic (Reply 23):


This will be a rocket T/O and climb to 12000m , with all FWD boostpump low press lights illuminated, due low fuel load.

That would be fun to see and talk about funny, not many Aircraft out there that would consider 60,000 pounds of fuel as a light fuel load.


Long live the Queen of the skies !
The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
 
User avatar
747classic
Posts: 1970
Joined: Sat Aug 15, 2009 9:13 am

RE: C-5M 86-0013 Unofficially Sets 41 World Records

Thu Oct 01, 2009 6:48 am



Quoting Max Q (Reply 24):
Wouldn't runway length come into play with a C-5/B747 competition?

Both aircraft will depart with full rated T/O thrust ( for 5 minutes, max. certified in normal conditions), despite the relative low TOW, to obtain as soon as possible height and/or speed. Then the climb would start to 12.000 meters with full rated CLB/CON thrust with MAX CLB Speed selected.
So runway length is no limiting factor for both aircraft.
Operating a twin over the ocean, you're always one engine failure from a total emergency.
 
tommytoyz
Posts: 1195
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 9:08 am

RE: C-5M 86-0013 Unofficially Sets 41 World Records

Thu Oct 15, 2009 11:10 pm



Quoting 747classic (Reply 23):
For the record braking flight during certification of the 747-8 the following weights are involved :

Estimated OEW = 421,200 lb (191,100 kg)
MZFW = 717,000 lb (325,000 kg)
MTOW = 975,000 lb (442,000 kg)


Payload = 177.000 lb (80.000 kg)
Actual ZFW = 421,200 (191,100) + 177.000 (80.000) = 598,200 lb (271,100 kg)
Estimated T/O fuel = 61800 lb (28.000 kg)

Actual TOW = 660.000 lb (299,100 kg)

You guys are making a strong case for replacing the C-5s with 747-8Fs. A widened front loading opening could be developed cheaply to match the opening in the C-5 if really needed and viola - a perfectly capable, proven, reliable, economical, cheaper and more capable lift aircraft.
 
jarheadk5
Posts: 216
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2005 2:45 pm

RE: C-5M 86-0013 Unofficially Sets 41 World Records

Fri Oct 16, 2009 3:01 am



Quoting Tommytoyz (Reply 28):
You guys are making a strong case for replacing the C-5s with 747-8Fs. A widened front loading opening could be developed cheaply to match the opening in the C-5 if really needed and viola - a perfectly capable, proven, reliable, economical, cheaper and more capable lift aircraft.

How are you going to load two M1 Abrams main battle tanks into a 747?
How are you going to load two CH-53E helicopters into a 747?
How are you going to load three CH-46E, VH-3D, or VH-60N helicopters into a 747?

I'll stop there, because it should be obvious that it's not just about the weight of the cargo. It's also about the size of the cargo, and the logistics of getting that cargo on and off the airplane in an expedient manner, without having to invest money we don't have in loading equipment capable of lifting items like a 120,000lb main battle tank up to the 747's cargo floor.
Cleared to Contact
 
TropicBird
Posts: 432
Joined: Sat May 28, 2005 9:13 am

RE: C-5M 86-0013 Unofficially Sets 41 World Records

Sat Oct 17, 2009 3:08 am



Quoting JarheadK5 (Reply 29):
How are you going to load two M1 Abrams main battle tanks into a 747?
How are you going to load two CH-53E helicopters into a 747?
How are you going to load three CH-46E, VH-3D, or VH-60N helicopters into a 747?

You use the C-17's for this lift, that is what it was developed for. With the 747, the USAF logistics experts will use it to fly non-oversized cargo.
 
jarheadk5
Posts: 216
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2005 2:45 pm

RE: C-5M 86-0013 Unofficially Sets 41 World Records

Sat Oct 17, 2009 6:38 am



Quoting Tropicbird (Reply 30):
You use the C-17's for this lift, that is what it was developed for. With the 747, the USAF logistics experts will use it to fly non-oversized cargo.

C-17 only fits one M1, one H-53E, or (I think) two H-46, H-3, or H-60.

Non-oversize cargo already goes via KC-10 and civilian carriers, along with the C-5 and C-17, and it will also eventually go via whatever the KC-X ends up being.
Cleared to Contact
 
tommytoyz
Posts: 1195
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 9:08 am

RE: C-5M 86-0013 Unofficially Sets 41 World Record

Sat Oct 17, 2009 9:12 pm



Quoting JarheadK5 (Reply 29):
How are you going to load two M1 Abrams main battle tanks into a 747?
How are you going to load two CH-53E helicopters into a 747?
How are you going to load three CH-46E, VH-3D, or VH-60N helicopters into a 747?

1. You design a larger loading door
2. Buy lift equipment that can lift 120,000 lbs, transportable on a C-17, C-130 or 747
3. Alternatively, use a lift that can lift all but an M-1 weight (747 already has one) and relegate M-1s to C-17s. The 747s would relieve most other lift duties from the C-17. Redesigned 747-8Fs with larger loading bays could handle the rest.
4. Anyone though of a loading ramp, like they have for trucks?

This would be cheaper than

1. Buying additional C-17s (twice the cost, per lift capability, than a 747-8F)
2. Designing a C-5 replacement (incalculably expensive)

It's cheaper than C-17s because a 747-8F costs about the same as a C-17 per plane but the 747 is over twice as capable. Just my WAG.
 
jarheadk5
Posts: 216
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2005 2:45 pm

RE: C-5M 86-0013 Unofficially Sets 41 World Records

Sun Oct 18, 2009 2:23 am



Quoting Tommytoyz (Reply 32):
1. You design a larger loading door

The H-53E is too tall to fit in the 747. So is the H-46, H-47, and a boat-load of other equipment I'm not even going to list.

Quoting Tommytoyz (Reply 32):
2. Buy lift equipment that can lift 120,000 lbs, transportable on a C-17, C-130 or 747

Not financially realistic.

Quoting Tommytoyz (Reply 32):
3. Alternatively, use a lift that can lift all but an M-1 weight (747 already has one) and relegate M-1s to C-17s. The 747s would relieve most other lift duties from the C-17. Redesigned 747-8Fs with larger loading bays could handle the rest.

Again... civilian carriers, KC-10s, C-130s, etc. already carry palletized, non-oversize loads all over the world.

Quoting Tommytoyz (Reply 32):
4. Anyone though of a loading ramp, like they have for trucks?

How are you going to get that loading ramp to an airfield in a "bare-base" scenario?
Military transports that carry vehicles have built-in loading ramps for a reason. A ramp that has to be transported to a location, then offloaded and set-up by someone (several someones, actually), rules out an awful lot of capabilities.

Quoting Tommytoyz (Reply 32):
It's cheaper than C-17s because a 747-8F costs about the same as a C-17 per plane but the 747 is over twice as capable. Just my WAG.

Uhhh... NO.
I'll just throw out a few C-17 capabilities that the 747 (of any variation) will NEVER have:
- assault landing
- combat offload
- airdrop (personnel OR equipment)
Cleared to Contact
 
tommytoyz
Posts: 1195
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 9:08 am

RE: C-5M 86-0013 Unofficially Sets 41 World Record

Mon Oct 19, 2009 8:39 pm



Quoting JarheadK5 (Reply 31):
C-17 only fits one M1, one H-53E, or (I think) two H-46, H-3, or H-60.

1.
The C-5's wings and fuselage were carefully evaluated and examined by experts, who concluded that there's another 30 to 40 years of useful life in the basic airframe of the C-5," U.S. Sen. Tom Carper, D-Del., said in a telephone interview.

2.
The Air Mobility Command, DAFB's parent organization, lists the cost of C-5 modernization at $90 million per plane in "fiscal 2009 constant dollars." The cost of a C-17 is listed at $202.3 million in "constant fiscal 1998 dollars.

I'm sold on the C-5M for these reasons. It makes sense to me now. I was not aware of the long remaining life of the airframe.
 
Galaxy5007
Topic Author
Posts: 637
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2005 12:06 pm

RE: C-5M 86-0013 Unofficially Sets 41 World Records

Tue Oct 20, 2009 1:03 am



Quoting Tommytoyz (Reply 34):
2.
The Air Mobility Command, DAFB's parent organization, lists the cost of C-5 modernization at $90 million per plane in "fiscal 2009 constant dollars." The cost of a C-17 is listed at $202.3 million in "constant fiscal 1998 dollars.

Each additonal C-17 added to the original 180 is costing the USAF roughly $264 million a piece; not counting spare parts, LAIRCM modifications and the bugs that still have yet to be worked out .

Most of the C-5 flight crews and maintainers are sold on the C-5M. Heck, I was happy with just the AMP, as the legacy instruments were killing the MC rates more than anything; especially in the early years of OEF and OIF. MADARS II had to be replaced with MADARS III because there was no parts for it, and the rebuilt parts had been rebuilt so many times that it was just junk at the end. I'm not quite sure what the new system is called, I heard of it before, but don't recall the new system name.

I'd like to see the new kneeling landing gear and the engines that raise up so they don't hit the ground on the 747F. Give me a break. The 747F will never replace the C-5. Only a C-5 type aircraft that has the same or exceed the capabilities of the current C-5 will replace it; ie a newly designed aircraft from scratch, a rebuild of the C-5 tooling and have it include the RERP, AMP, and all the other bugs and structural issues worked out with a new order completely (which won't happen for years since the KC-X is #1 priority).
 
Galaxy5007
Topic Author
Posts: 637
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2005 12:06 pm

RE: C-5M 86-0013 Unofficially Sets 41 World Records

Tue Oct 20, 2009 1:29 am

$264M per aircraft in FY 2003 dollars. Currently, its at a cost of $328M FY08 dollars.
 
Galaxy5007
Topic Author
Posts: 637
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2005 12:06 pm

RE: C-5M 86-0013 Unofficially Sets 41 World Records

Fri Nov 13, 2009 6:11 pm

http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123177537

All 41 records have been made official Big grin
 
User avatar
mayor
Posts: 6188
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 3:58 pm

RE: C-5M 86-0013 Unofficially Sets 41 World Records

Sun Nov 15, 2009 4:24 pm

It would be impossible to do anything even closely resembling a combat offload from a 747, no matter what model. Offloads of that type JUST TAKE LONGER than it does from something that is much closer to the ground. When you're in a combat zone and the time it takes to offload something could mean life or death, I'll spend the extra money on something with that capability, thank you. Can you imagine what a sitting duck the offloading/loading crew would be, stuck up in the air while doing their job, not to mention, the a/c itself. Even with palletized cargo, if the C-17 is set up like the C-5, offload and onload can be accomplished much faster than off of a 747.
"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests