AviationAddict
Topic Author
Posts: 769
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2006 2:37 am

Could 747F Be A Possible C-5 Replacement?

Tue Apr 11, 2006 2:21 pm

Would the USAF ever consider replacing it's C-5s with 747s? I can't imagine there being a huge size difference (but I don't know much about the C-5, so I could be very wrong) and I'd imagine using a 747 would cost a lot less than building an all new military cargo aircraft. I know the C-5s are getting pretty old and I also know they've never been all that reliable, so the military must be at least eyeing potential replacements. Any thoughts?
 
N1641
Posts: 201
Joined: Thu May 18, 2000 2:10 pm

RE: Could 747F Be A Possible C-5 Replacement?

Tue Apr 11, 2006 2:48 pm

the military cant fit its crap into a 747, theres no holes big enough, for example the flipping nose or rear end that splits open so you can drive vehicles into it.
 
AviationAddict
Topic Author
Posts: 769
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2006 2:37 am

RE: Could 747F Be A Possible C-5 Replacement?

Tue Apr 11, 2006 2:57 pm

Quoting N1641 (Reply 1):
the military cant fit its crap into a 747, theres no holes big enough, for example the flipping nose or rear end that splits open so you can drive vehicles into it.

What do you think would cost more; build a new 747 based variant that would have doors and cargo bays wide enough to fit the military equipment, OR constructing an all new freighter? In this case I suppose it might be easier (but maybe not cheaper), to just build an all new model.
 
wingnut135
Posts: 124
Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2005 11:17 am

RE: Could 747F Be A Possible C-5 Replacement?

Tue Apr 11, 2006 7:33 pm

Fred was designed to carry out sized cargo and won the contract against the 747. The only way you'd get it to work is if you could redesign the landing gear to get the cargo deck at least 6 feet closer to the ground and then make it so they can kneel to get even closer when needed; the biggest selling point if I'm not mistaken. See the Antonov 124 and 225 for that as well. Also you'd need to redesign the body shape. Floor to ceiling on Fred is about 13ft all the way down; the flight deck on a 747 cuts front end load height but I don't know by how much.

Just my  twocents 

Wingnut
A good friend will get you out of jail. A real friend will be there with you saying, "Damn that was fun!"
 
User avatar
ptrjong
Posts: 4129
Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 9:38 am

RE: Could 747F Be A Possible C-5 Replacement?

Wed Apr 12, 2006 12:05 am

Galaxy is nicknamed Fred? Why?

Peter
The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad (Salvador Dali)
 
dw747400
Posts: 1100
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2001 8:24 am

RE: Could 747F Be A Possible C-5 Replacement?

Wed Apr 12, 2006 1:52 am

Quoting Wingnut135 (Reply 3):
Fred was designed to carry out sized cargo and won the contract against the 747.

As many have said here, the C-5 NEVER competed against the 747 for a military contract. The Boeing entry for the CX-HLS competition was significantly different than the 747--the only significant contribution from Boeing's CX-HLS competition was the development of high bypass engines. It is possible that the experience in designing very large aircraft helped Boeing engineers build the 747, but there is no relation between the 747 and the Boeing CX-HLS (which looked like a slightly bigger version of the C-5).

By the way, Lockheed won on price, not technical ability. The Boeing entry was judged superior, but the price they wanted was DRAMATICALLY more than the Lockheed. Of course, with all the C-5 issues that occured, many feel the Boeing would have been the better buy. Of course, not having ever seen it move of paper, no one can say for sure. Boeing may have hit the same problems Lockheed did.

EDIT: Also, I have seen plans to make the 747 kneel. I'm not sure if they ever did a full scale test. It was still higher than the C-5's deck, but low enough for dirve-on ramp loading.

[Edited 2006-04-11 18:55:44]
CFI--Certfied Freakin Idiot
 
Boeing Nut
Posts: 5078
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2001 2:42 am

RE: Could 747F Be A Possible C-5 Replacement?

Wed Apr 12, 2006 2:03 am

Quoting Wingnut135 (Reply 3):
Fred was designed to carry out sized cargo and won the contract against the 747.

The 747 was never in the running for this contract. Lockheeds proposal beat out Boeing's which looked a lot like an An-124 from what I remember.

Now here is a true military version of a 747 freighter. Interesting stuff on how a KC-747 would come together. Pan down to page 64 for the freighter stuff.
I'm not a real aeronautical engineer, I just play one on Airliners.net.
 
AirRyan
Posts: 2399
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 9:57 am

RE: Could 747F Be A Possible C-5 Replacement?

Wed Apr 12, 2006 4:36 am

Quoting Ptrjong (Reply 4):
Galaxy is nicknamed Fred? Why?

It's like a platinum blonde hollywood actress - kinda bitchy and high maintenance and not quite worth the price (as in other alternatives may have been wiser.)

When your C-5 flies halfway around the world to deliver cargo 1/10th of it's limit - and then breaks down itself so that another has to deliver the parts to get it in the air again, well....

FRED - F*cking Ridiculous Economic Disaster
 
prebennorholm
Posts: 7028
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2000 6:25 am

RE: Could 747F Be A Possible C-5 Replacement?

Wed Apr 12, 2006 5:00 am

Quoting AviationAddict (Thread starter):
Would the USAF ever consider replacing it's C-5s with 747s?

I don't think that the 747 will be around to replace the C-5. When will the C-5s retire? 2040? 2050?

Right now they are getting a new life with lots of improvements. When that is over in 5-10 years time, then they will have another 25 years without much modification.

In addition the 747 is not the obvious choice. The floor is too high due to the wing center box.

The upper deck floor is rather low, and it is an integrated structure to keep the pressurized hull in shape. Therefore it cannot be easily modified.

It all means that all but the smallest helicopters cannot be loaded. That alone disqualifies the 747 as C-5 replacement.

It is more likely that the C-5 will never be replaced. Simply because peace breaks out on planet Earth before the present C-5s are beer-canned.
Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs
 
747400sp
Posts: 3900
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2003 7:27 pm

RE: Could 747F Be A Possible C-5 Replacement?

Wed Apr 12, 2006 6:53 am

In the early 80's the USAF was looking at the 747-200F to supplement there C-5 fleet. Because of this, Flying Tiger did kneeling test using one of there 747-200F. I fore got what device they used but I believe they successful.
 
User avatar
ptrjong
Posts: 4129
Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 9:38 am

RE: Could 747F Be A Possible C-5 Replacement?

Wed Apr 12, 2006 7:18 am

Quoting Dw747400 (Reply 5):
Boeing entry for the CX-HLS competition was significantly different than the 747--the only significant contribution from Boeing's CX-HLS competition was the development of high bypass engines.

I realized that the Boeing competitor to the C-5 was different from the 747, but I did buy the story that the 747's elevated cockpit was inherited staight from that design. Not so?
Why then did the 747 get that? To enable civil cargo loading throug the nose? Aerodynamically the raised cockpit, not repeated in other widebody airliners, is a penalty I suppose.
The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad (Salvador Dali)
 
dw747400
Posts: 1100
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2001 8:24 am

RE: Could 747F Be A Possible C-5 Replacement?

Wed Apr 12, 2006 8:04 am

Quoting Ptrjong (Reply 10):
but I did buy the story that the 747's elevated cockpit was inherited staight from that design.

It's a logical conclusion for sure (I thought the same thing at one time), but it is not the case.

The history of the 747 is amazing--one big battle was the idea of a single or double deck airplane. Put very simply, Juan Trippe and Pan-Am wanted a double deck plane, while Joe Sutter at Boeing wanted a single, large deck. In addition to his concerns that evacuation, servicing, etc. could be a problem (just building a 350 passenger plane was radical enough!), many believed any subsonic transport would soon be relegated to cargo duty as SSTs took over passenger routes.

To make the 747 a competitive freighter, Sutter's team basically drew a circle around two 8x8 shipping containers sitting on the main deck and decided on that as a cross section. The idea of nose loading these containers was very apealing, so Boeing looked at ways to add a nose door. Moving the cockpit was looked at but proved too complex as all the control linkages would have had to been reconnected every time the door was opened (I wonder what they would have done if they had FBW!).

Initially, boeing built a blister on the top of the fuselage for the cockpit, but this proved to be aerodynamically inefficient. Therefore they fared the cockpit into the fuselage. Orriginally the space behind the cockpit was going to be a crew rest area, but when Trippe saw the deisgn his dreams of a double decker came back, and an exclusive upper deck lounge was born. Sadly, business class seating followed shortly thereafter.

Aerodynamically, the 747's hump has some bennefits, in the form of area ruling. I'm sure it has penalties too, but one of our aerodynamics folks could explain that better than I.

Of course, lots more was going on, but I hope that gives you a good overview!
CFI--Certfied Freakin Idiot
 
User avatar
ptrjong
Posts: 4129
Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 9:38 am

RE: Could 747F Be A Possible C-5 Replacement?

Wed Apr 12, 2006 8:33 am

Very interesting. Thanks David.  Smile
The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad (Salvador Dali)
 
RC135U
Posts: 278
Joined: Wed May 04, 2005 9:53 pm

RE: Could 747F Be A Possible C-5 Replacement?

Wed Apr 12, 2006 10:59 am

After Lockheed completed the C-5B run, did they save the tooling? I see that Sikorsky is planning to produce brand new CH-53K models for the USMC with production running through 2022. How about a fresh run of C-5s in maybe 25 years (and addressing all the MX headaches)?  Wink
 
Thorny
Posts: 1508
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2005 8:44 am

RE: Could 747F Be A Possible C-5 Replacement?

Wed Apr 12, 2006 11:06 am

Quoting Dw747400 (Reply 11):
Moving the cockpit was looked at but proved too complex as all the control linkages would have had to been reconnected every time the door was opened (I wonder what they would have done if they had FBW!).

How did they solve this problem for the Pregnant Guppy and Super Guppy, derived from Boeing 377 and C-97s?
 
dw747400
Posts: 1100
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2001 8:24 am

RE: Could 747F Be A Possible C-5 Replacement?

Wed Apr 12, 2006 11:27 am

Good question Thorny!

It took a LONG time to reconnect the flight controls on the Guppy variants, but compared to a typical cargo aircraft they were used for specialized, low frequency flights. Thus, the fact that it took a long time to close the door wasn't a huge issue. Plus, I'm sure the control lines were a lot less complex than whats on the 747.

I can't recall the exact time it took to reconnect the flight controls, but I do know it was more than an hour (after the tail was swung into place).

This is one of the reasons Airbus built the Beluga. In addition to being newer, larger, more efficient, and most importantly NOT A BOEING, they could do much faster turnarounds.

The one I'm curious about is the new 747 super freighter for the 787. It is going to have a swing tail. And speaking of C-5 replacements... that sucker sure has capacity!  Wink
CFI--Certfied Freakin Idiot
 
seefivein
Posts: 130
Joined: Fri Apr 07, 2006 12:52 pm

RE: Could 747F Be A Possible C-5 Replacement?

Wed Apr 12, 2006 11:34 am

New 747 design

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/busine...html?searchpagefrom=3&searchdiff=6

The nose lifts up to enter

http://www.aviapartner.aero/images/press_saudi-747-pallet-high.jpg

I remember seeing some plans and booklets on the C5 from the early 60's and they had drawn one with 6 engines and a high lift wing(I hope I have it right)-yeah the one that looks like the Antov.
They had also drawn one with a nose that swung out to the sidewhich included the cockpit.
If..When they build another Heavy Lifter..I hope they make several versions so that One size is not their only hope.
 
wingnut135
Posts: 124
Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2005 11:17 am

RE: Could 747F Be A Possible C-5 Replacement?

Wed Apr 12, 2006 3:01 pm

I stand corrected. I knew Lockheed and Boeing were in the running for a large freighter at the same time and that the final design 747 was the result of Boeing's bid. I thought I had read that the C-5 and the 747 were in competition against each other. I'll have to look further into the CX-HLS though.

Wingnut
A good friend will get you out of jail. A real friend will be there with you saying, "Damn that was fun!"
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11141
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Could 747F Be A Possible C-5 Replacement?

Wed Apr 12, 2006 7:08 pm

Quoting Dw747400 (Reply 15):
The one I'm curious about is the new 747 super freighter for the 787. It is going to have a swing tail. And speaking of C-5 replacements... that sucker sure has capacity!

The B-747-400LCF swing tail will have all the tail and rudder control connections, and the APU electrical connections transit through the hinges, somehow. They will not have to be disconnect or reconnected every time the tail is opened/closed. Additionally, the upper deck portion will be extended almost to the tail as the fuselarge sections of the B-787s must fit inside. But, the B-747-400LCF (first one in modification right now by EVA) will not be equipped with a NCD. Boeing is also going to increase the fleet size now from 3 airplanes to 4 or 5.
 
Triple Seven
Posts: 518
Joined: Fri Apr 07, 2000 10:04 pm

RE: Could 747F Be A Possible C-5 Replacement?

Thu Apr 13, 2006 2:10 am

Quote:
In the early 80's the USAF was looking at the 747-200F to supplement there C-5 fleet. Because of this, Flying Tiger did kneeling test using one of there 747-200F. I fore got what device they used but I believe they successful.

They actually dug a ditch or some sort and drove the 742F nose wheel into it to simulate the kneeling height of the proposed AF 747F infront of some AF brass.
 
mikehobley
Posts: 28
Joined: Sun Oct 10, 2004 2:18 am

RE: Could 747F Be A Possible C-5 Replacement?

Thu Apr 13, 2006 2:40 am

Quoting Dw747400 (Reply 11):
The history of the 747 is amazing--

just want to add my  twocents  to this....

If you look at Boeings proposal for the CX-HLS, you can clearly see where the 747 inherited its looks from. Boeings design was basically a 747 nose section, with a hi wing/turbofan and an upper deck that stretched all the way back to the tail - giving it the look of what we now know to be the C-5..its easy to see how Boeing and the airlines developed this into the 747 we know and love today....this Boeing package was technically superior to the C-5 but to expensive at just over $2billiion....
 
dw747400
Posts: 1100
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2001 8:24 am

RE: Could 747F Be A Possible C-5 Replacement?

Thu Apr 13, 2006 3:14 am

Quoting Mikehobley (Reply 20):
If you look at Boeings proposal for the CX-HLS, you can clearly see where the 747 inherited its looks from.

As I mentioned above, this is not the case. Any resemblance is due to the fact both aircraft have a nose cargo door, nothing more. Joe Sutter spoke about this a while back.
CFI--Certfied Freakin Idiot
 
galaxy5
Posts: 1952
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2000 10:09 pm

RE: Could 747F Be A Possible C-5 Replacement?

Thu Apr 13, 2006 6:56 am

How far are you gonna kneel a 747 before the engines hit the ground?
"damn, I didnt know prince could Ball like that" - Charlie Murphy
 
seefivein
Posts: 130
Joined: Fri Apr 07, 2006 12:52 pm

RE: Could 747F Be A Possible C-5 Replacement?

Thu Apr 13, 2006 8:46 am

If you get a chance to watch the new commercials for the new SUV from GMC,, it has a 747 with the nose opening up and showing the inside of the 747 too

The nose lifts up to enter

http://www.aviapartner.aero/images/press_saudi-747-pallet-high.jpg
 
sonic67
Posts: 287
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 2:43 pm

RE: Could 747F Be A Possible C-5 Replacement?

Thu Apr 13, 2006 10:00 am

Quoting Galaxy5 (Reply 22):
How far are you gonna kneel a 747 before the engines hit the ground?

This answer your question?
http://www.strangedangers.com/content/item/114927.html
 
Triple Seven
Posts: 518
Joined: Fri Apr 07, 2000 10:04 pm

RE: Could 747F Be A Possible C-5 Replacement?

Thu Apr 13, 2006 10:52 pm

Quote:
just want to add my to this....

If you look at Boeings proposal for the CX-HLS, you can clearly see where the 747 inherited its looks from. Boeings design was basically a 747 nose section, with a hi wing/turbofan and an upper deck that stretched all the way back to the tail - giving it the look of what we now know to be the C-5..its easy to see how Boeing and the airlines developed this into the 747 we know and love today....this Boeing package was technically superior to the C-5 but to expensive at just over $2billiion....

There is alot of misconception to the origin of the 747 design.

To make it short, Boeing benefited widebody design experiance and not inspiration from the CX-HLS competition.

Boeing 747 designers came up with two essential design; Widebody single deck concept and a narrower wide body twin deck design.

As we know the widebody single deck layout was the chosen one. It was belatedly decided that the flight deck be move above the passanger cabin to allow the possible fitting of a nose door. In the 60s no one was sure if the 747 would make it as a passenger carrier, it was a gamble. The nose door allows the 747 a second life as a freighter in the event the 747 failed as a passanger carrier.
 
Oroka
Posts: 1130
Joined: Sat Dec 09, 2006 4:37 am

RE: Could 747F Be A Possible C-5 Replacement?

Fri Apr 14, 2006 12:12 pm

It would take alot of structural strengthening to the floors too. I remember something about the old Air Canada 744s (maybe ex Canadian) having abnormally strong floors because of some contract they had with the Canadian military... dont ask for a source, I forget where I read it.

IMO the USAF should eventually replace the C-5s with a fleet of 744s and C-17s. The C-17 can deal with the heavylift stuff, then the 744 can do the palletized and smaller hardware. Maybe they could even sell off the C-5s to cargo haulers, let them do the AN-124 thing, and contract out if they have a C-5 class heavylift capactiy, kinda like when they contract out to airlines to move troops when needed.
 
User avatar
Devilfish
Posts: 6685
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

RE: Could 747F Be A Possible C-5 Replacement?

Tue Apr 18, 2006 2:43 pm

Quoting N1641 (Reply 1):
the military cant fit its crap into a 747, theres no holes big enough, for example the flipping nose or rear end that splits open so you can drive vehicles into it.



Quoting AviationAddict (Thread starter):
so the military must be at least eyeing potential replacements.



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 18):
But, the B-747-400LCF (first one in modification right now by EVA) will not be equipped with a NCD. Boeing is also going to increase the fleet size now from 3 airplanes to 4 or 5.



Quoting Oroka (Reply 26):
It would take alot of structural strengthening to the floors too



Quoting Oroka (Reply 26):
and contract out if they have a C-5 class heavylift capactiy, kinda like when they contract out to airlines to move troops when needed.

From CivAv: I wonder if the 787 fuselage sections would also require the "JUMBOHAULER" to kneel, as the military requirements.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...aerospace/2002931297_boeing15.html

[Edited 2006-04-18 07:53:11]
"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
 
dw747400
Posts: 1100
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2001 8:24 am

RE: Could 747F Be A Possible C-5 Replacement?

Tue Apr 18, 2006 11:16 pm

Quoting DEVILFISH (Reply 27):
I wonder if the 787 fuselage sections would also require the "JUMBOHAULER" to kneel, as the military requirements.

I can't see why. They will have specialized loading/unloading equipment for the aircraft--and it is a lot less complicated to build a tall loader than a kneeling 747, especially when the cargo is loaded through the tail! You would need to lift the nose gear up or retract the mains.
CFI--Certfied Freakin Idiot
 
User avatar
Devilfish
Posts: 6685
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

RE: Could 747F Be A Possible C-5 Replacement?

Wed Apr 19, 2006 2:17 am

Quoting Dw747400 (Reply 28):

I can't see why.

My error. I didn't immediately see the impracticality of loading a long, large fuse section up into an incline, and the swing-out tail hitting the pavement. I was thinking about a special heavy loader for military applications, but I think that too would be an unacceptable, time-consuming complication, especially in the field.
"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
 
airbusA346
Posts: 7284
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2004 7:05 am

RE: Could 747F Be A Possible C-5 Replacement?

Sat Apr 22, 2006 6:05 am

Quoting Mikehobley (Reply 20):
If you look at Boeings proposal for the CX-HLS, you can clearly see where the 747 inherited its looks from. Boeings design was basically a 747 nose section, with a hi wing/turbofan and an upper deck that stretched all the way back to the tail - giving it the look of what we now know to be the C-5..its easy to see how Boeing and the airlines developed this into the 747 we know and love today....this Boeing package was technically superior to the C-5 but to expensive at just over $2billiion....

Can you please show me, because I can't find anything.  Sad

Tom.
Tom Walker '086' First Officer of a A318/A319 for Air Lambert - Hours Flown: 17 hour 05 minutes (last updated 24/12/05).

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 27 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos