Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
MAC_Veteran
Posts: 702
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 1999 3:03 am

C-5 Floor Weights And Additional Notes

Sun Apr 01, 2001 6:14 pm

One thing I'll never forget working around the C-5...that floor of the thing can handle *incredible* high weight pressures upon it.

The secret behind it was the width of a highly reinforced floor coupled with minimal weakness points in it. These weakness points are primarily the "skinny" main floor "roller-tray system" which are long, detachable metal plates with small, but quite numerous rollers on one side, flat surface on the other that snap down with locks built in to provide either palletized cargo or floor load cargo capability or combinations of both.

The other weakness points are the forward and rear ramp areas, which have weight restrictions on cargo secured there due to the hydraulics systems that raise and lower the ramps there.

Getting back to the roller trays of the 463L system, each aircraft posesses a differing configuration. The earlier C-130 and C-141 have much wider "trays" of these same type of rollers. The C-130 possessing a roller system that did not involve cutting holes into the floor to accomodate them, you just take the roller trays, which look like a metallic box with rollers inside of them and a lock device at each end, which then is slapped into a position on the floor (which is universally flat and "clean".

The C-141-B model uses a slightly updated roller system versus the C-130 that employed "sunken trays" of rollers that fit flush into the floor. These are almost as wide used on the C-130, but they fit into the floor for palletized cargo so that it was flush with the locks and detents in the rail system, or they were flipped over and smooth with the rest of the floor surface. This created a weight restriction and weakness area for certain widths of the C-141 floor as they were now weaker with these cutouts for these trays in them. Another feature is the passenger seat detent system in the floor which allows standard airline "trip seats" to be hammered into place for combi cargo/pax configuration.

The later C-5 uses same system in concept to the C-141 but MUCH narrower tray system affording much higher cabin weights to be lifted. (As earlier described, C-5 passenger seating -mostly- handled with 75 seats up top aft of the wing, although the C-5 does have a rare to be used "airbus config" using palletized airline seats that roll into place with 2 "comfort pallets" used to handle the extra lavatory and inflight feeding needs, I think the seating can be brought up to around 400 pax? I never saw this config used while I was in though, saw it mentioned in C-5 "-9 and -5 Tech orders" but heard it was only used during Vietnam's "Operation BabyLift", which tragically lost a C-5A at Saigon shortly after takeoff killing all aboard. Debate still exists whether it was the pressure bulkhead that blew out due to a manufacturers defect or a shoulder launched SAM that took it out.)

If one were to try and load an M-1 Abrams or Bradley on a 747 Frieghter, the thing would fall right through the floor and wreck the aircraft. It just cant handle it.

The M-1 weighs around 65 tons if my memory is right. That bad-boy is going to -sail- right through the floor! On a C-5, kneel her and chain them down no problem. The weight and stress the C-5 main floor can handle is -just incredible-.

Can anyone tell me which roller/floor system they use on the C-17? I never had a chance to work on them as I left the USAF before they were in operational service. Would be appreciated.

Regards
MAC

 
Aerotech
Posts: 254
Joined: Sun Jul 09, 2000 10:44 am

RE: C-5 Floor Weights And Additional Notes

Sun Apr 01, 2001 6:43 pm

It's almost identical to the C-5s. I watched the LM working with them preparing for some cargo. They are about 5in. wide, and 4-5ft. long-similar to Freds. I guess this is beacause of the comonality of needing to hold an M-1.
 
galaxy5
Topic Author
Posts: 1952
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2000 10:09 pm

RE: C-17 A Lemon!

Mon Apr 02, 2001 7:04 am

c-17 cant fly with a m-1 onboard it wont go anywhere.
"damn, I didnt know prince could Ball like that" - Charlie Murphy
 
flyf15
Posts: 6633
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 11:10 am

Galaxy5

Mon Apr 02, 2001 7:31 am

The C-17 can indeed carry an M-1...

From a book about military aircraft:

Accommodation: Flightcrew of two, plus loadmaster. Max payload 77,290kg (170,400lb). Can carry standard freight pallets, air droppable pallets, 100 passengers on seating pallets and 54 along fuselage sides, 48 strecher patients, 75 troops on temporary fuselage side and centreline seats, 102 paratroops, 4WD vehicles, an M1A1 Abrams MBT plus other vehicles, or up to three AH-64s.
 
MD-90
Posts: 7836
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2000 12:45 pm

RE: Galaxy5

Mon Apr 02, 2001 8:42 am

What do you mean the C-17 can't go anywhere with a M-1 tank aboard? It most certainly can. I've read of it's capabilities in several books, and all attest to it's ability to carry the Abrams tank. Flyf15 is right.
 
galaxy5
Topic Author
Posts: 1952
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2000 10:09 pm

RE: C-17 A Lemon!

Mon Apr 02, 2001 10:22 pm

go ahead read your book, but operationally it doesnt and wont happen. they are too range restricted right now with just a 90,000 lb payload. with a 135,000 -160,000lb payload they cant do anything. all those things in the book are a wish list. when you see what they can do operationally ( as i have ) you will find out how limited that aircraft really is.
"damn, I didnt know prince could Ball like that" - Charlie Murphy
 
galaxy5
Topic Author
Posts: 1952
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2000 10:09 pm

RE: C-17 A Lemon!

Wed Apr 11, 2001 6:28 am

im back
"damn, I didnt know prince could Ball like that" - Charlie Murphy
 
B747
Posts: 259
Joined: Wed May 19, 1999 10:08 pm

RE: C-17 A Lemon!

Wed Apr 11, 2001 6:35 am

Where ya been? Don't worry you haven't missed much, just everybody arguing with each other again!!!!!!
Brian
At Pope, where not happy, until you're not happy!
 
galaxy5
Topic Author
Posts: 1952
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2000 10:09 pm

RE: C-17 A Lemon!

Wed Apr 11, 2001 7:12 am

i just got back from turkey, ramstein, mildehall run. got my rugs, beer and cheap beef ( lol just kidding on the beef )
"damn, I didnt know prince could Ball like that" - Charlie Murphy
 
B747
Posts: 259
Joined: Wed May 19, 1999 10:08 pm

RE: C-17 A Lemon!

Wed Apr 11, 2001 7:30 am

Sounds like a good run, which plane did you take ? How is my old girl 7035 doing?
Brian
At Pope, where not happy, until you're not happy!
 
wannabe
Posts: 652
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 1999 3:37 am

RE: C-17 A Lemon!

Wed Apr 11, 2001 12:30 pm

A few posts back, L188 mentioned that oil consumption in the engines would limit how long an aircraft could stay aloft using in-air refueling. I never thought about oil consumption in modern jet engines. How much oil does a C-5 engine hold and how many hours can it run before the oil level is depleted enough to cause problems?
 
B747
Posts: 259
Joined: Wed May 19, 1999 10:08 pm

Wannabe

Wed Apr 11, 2001 2:46 pm

Wannabe:
I'm not sure how much oil the entire engine has in it, but a C-5, TF-39 engine has a engine oil reservoir that has a capacity of 9.1 Gallons, or 36 Quarts. I know that seems like alot, but you ask about the timeframe an engine can run on that much oil, and that depends on the engine. I have seen engines use 5 or 6 quarts of oil for an 8 hour segment, and go to the other engine on the same wing to find that it didn't burn any at all!
So to answer your question I would have to say the 72 Hour rule applys to the C-5, just as it does to Air Force One, and the E-4B.
Brian

At Pope, where not happy, until you're not happy!
 
FDXmech
Posts: 3219
Joined: Sun Mar 19, 2000 9:48 pm

RE: C-17 A Lemon!

Wed Apr 11, 2001 4:04 pm

How much outsize airlift does the USAF use as opposed to palletable lift?

During Desert Shield, after the initial heavy equipment (tanks and other oversize loads) were airlifted to protect Saudi Arabia from invasion. Was the majority of materiel oversize or palletized during the pre-war buildup?

Were the bulk of the oversize equipment (tanks) flown or shipped via sea?

Would the USAF fly the C5 or C17 on an unimproved airstrip close to battlelines? The airplane is capable but would the Air Force risk such an aircraft to ground fire?

I still don't understand the reliability problem as opposed to civilian airliners that accrue vastly more hours and cycles than their military counterparts.

And lastly, the 747 and C5 carry roughly the same payload (I understand the outsized C5 cargo area). It was said that the C5 can carry much more in wartime conditions. If thats the case, I'm sure the 747 or MD11 could do the same. I'm not suggesting the 747 should or could fill the role of the C5, but if the airlift shortfall isn't strictly in outsized cargo, I feel it could play a vital role. And I recollect this was not long ago debated in military circles.


You're only as good as your last departure.
 
L-188
Posts: 29881
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 1999 11:27 am

RE: C-17 A Lemon!

Wed Apr 11, 2001 7:31 pm

I don't know but I have heard that the ECAP E-4B's (747-200) are limited to about 72 hours of total flight time because of the oil issue. I don't know if that aircraft has larger then standard tanks or any other mods.

You figure that on any turbine engine the oil passage to the the last bearing on the engine has no return. It is just dumped overboard. This is because it is so hot anyway the oil would pretty much be toast and full of carbon. This would shorten the life of the oil. It is allso one of the reasons why if you have an engine that is just windmilling on the ground often you will see the bottom of the nacelle just coated in oil.

OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
 
galaxy5
Topic Author
Posts: 1952
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2000 10:09 pm

RE: C-17 A Lemon!

Thu Apr 12, 2001 7:22 am

HEY 747 7035 is doing great i think i flew on it a couple months ago id have to check my log book to be sure. as far as oil consumption goes. the TF-39-c oil total capacity is 12.9 gals the fill lvl is 9.1 gal and the operating lvl is 6.1 gal . the engine is allowed to use 1.1 quarts per hour normally but can go as high as 2.2 quarts per hour but that is considered excessive and requires a consumption run.

most of the cargo we fly is palletized id say about 60-40 (40% being oversized rolling stock stuff ) and i think a 747 would have been great for all the palletized stuff we have enough C-5s for the oversized stuff. but thats above me.

i doubt whether the C-17 will ever be used to its full capacity just like the C-5 it costs way to much to land in a battle field environment and is way to big of a target. thats my opinion
"damn, I didnt know prince could Ball like that" - Charlie Murphy

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