|Quoting Cargotanker (Reply 47):|
I've heard rumors that it is as bad or worse, but nothing confirmed. There used to be a few locations where an AN-124 was in perpetual 'broke, awaiting repairs' status for months on end. I saw one in Gander in the late 90s that was there for months and I think Dallas Love had one for awhile, too. I've also heard that their 'crane' inside the cargo hold is notoriously unreliable, and that they (Volga?) want to switch to rollers and rails like 'normal' cargo planes.
I remember hearing it was a POS a decade ago....probably because spare parts weren't funded. The AN-225 was built using alot of the same parts the AN-124 has, and you see that thing doesn't fly but a dozen times a year.
|Quoting Flighty (Reply 45):|
Running 10+ hour per day utilization really knocks the cobwebs out of an aircraft
I can vouch that when the C-5 stays in the air, the better its reliability rate is. Once it lands for scheduled maintenance, it breaks hard, then it takes forever to get it back up to that great running condition.
|Quoting A342 (Reply 46):|
FBW system should be easier to maintain than the C-5's hydraulic/mechanical flight control system.
I agree completely; the rigging of everything takes a long time. EVERYTHING on the C-5 is mechanical, linkages are what make the C-5 work. The C-5M is the only C-5 with an electronic control system, and its isolated to the engines only. I'm sure it would be massively expensive to upgrade it to a FWB system, so thats probably why it hasn't been proposed before.