Talk:C-5 Galaxy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
C-5 Galaxy is part of WikiProject Aircraft, an attempt to better organize articles related to aircraft. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page or visit the project page where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Top This article has been rated as top-importance on the importance scale.
Aviation WikiPortal
WPMILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Related task forces...
 Military aviation task force
United States military history task force

Contents

[edit] computer issues

I see only half the plane in the picture, I am the only one? I'm using Mozilla Firefox 0.8 on Windows XP home, and default skin --AstroNomer 23:26, Jun 14, 2004 (UTC)

Doesn't work here. Safari, Mac OS X 10.2. I tried to work on it, but I don't know why it isn't working. Other tables work fine, I can't find anything wrong with this. RADICALBENDER★ 00:21, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Fine here. Safari, Mac OS X 10.3. I suspect it's a Safari bug rather than a wikip-inherent one. EddEdmondson 00:24, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
No problem in IE6 - Adrian Pingstone 07:57, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Ok in Netscape 7.0...hmmm...--AstroNomer 10:21, Jun 15, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Weights

The weight I believe is wrong.

The loaded wegiht is actually the Maximum take-off weight. I do not know what the loaded weight is however.

So if someone could fix that. That would be awesome. Mitch Owen 02:00, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Max speed wrong

The maximum speed is listed as 571 mph and 760 km/h. These values are not equal. 571 mph is, in fact, 918.85 km/h. I'm assuming that this is the correct number and that 760 km/h is incorrect, but I'll let someone else double-check and make the edit...

Any maximum speed for the C-5 simply expressed in mph or kph is wrong. Notice the period after the previous sentence. The Speed is limited by the aerodynamic pressures exerted on the aircraft. This can be expressed in Mach or Knots Calibrated Airspeed(KCAS)which has nothing to do with how fast you are moving over the ground, it has to do with air density. The maximum speed for the C-5 is 402 KCAS or .850 Mach, Someone somewhere converted what he thought was the maximum airspeed using arbitrary conditions (teperature and pressure alttitude) to get a number that the average Joe would identify with. The C-5 normally cruises at .77 Mach, Pilots should not exceed .825 Mach, beyond .850 Mach Lockheed says things might start to come apart at an alarming rate. I've seen a ground speed in excess of 650 mph going east in the jetstream with a 200 knot tailwind and seen less than 400 mph coming home with that same wind on the nose.

Those aren't numbers derived from arbitrary conditions (or shouldn't be); that number *should* be the maximum speed at sea level in a standard atmosphere. We can debate whether an MPH or Mach number figure is more meaningful here. :)--chris.lawson 01:33, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

That's my point, Somebody chose Sea level Standard day. Arbitrary: adj. Based on or subject to individual judgment or preference. Like someone's gonna fly over 500 mph at sea level in a C-5?

.77 Mach is ~585 MPH @Sea level .825 Mach is ~628 MPH .850 is ~647mph Which "Maximum" would you like? These are the only ones available. Trying to make sense of some air show fact sheet is an exercise in serious time wasting. Watch out for those trees at sea level.  :(

It seems very reasonable, and not at all "subject to individual judgement or preference", to use a standard atmosphere for the calculations. That's how aircraft manufacturers do things, and I see no reason why we should be any different.--chris.lawson 17:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Weights

Yes, the normal (or standard) maximum takeoff weight is 769,000 pounds. During wartime or with a special waiver, that weight restriction can increase to 840,000 pounds.

I was a former C-5 Galaxy loadmaster and you can refer to my web site for confirmation...

http://www.theaviationzone.com/factsheets/c5_specs.asp

Mike Neely 1600 (CDT), 26 April 2005

[edit] Tire Weights

Um, I just saw what's below in the trivia section. There's quite obviously a problem with the math in all this, so I've deleted it from the main page 'til we can sort it out. -Lommer | talk 21:01, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

  • The air in each tire weighs 181 pounds (82 kg). Total weight of all 28 tires is 4,214 pounds (1,911 kg). That's because the metal and rubber in each tire weighs minus 30.5 lb (−13.75 kg)!!

[edit] Weights again

There seems to be a problem with weights.

From the article:

  • Empty plane: 337,937 lb
  • Full fuel load: 332,500 lb
  • Possible cargo: 270,000 lb
  • Loaded plane: 769,000 lb
  • Maximum take-off: 840,000 lb

These numbers don't add up, no matter how I twist them. If "Empty plane" corresponds to the weight of plane itself with no fuel or cargo, fully fueled and loaded plane should weigh 940,437 pounds, which is more than "maximum takeoff" number. In other words, fully loaded and fueled, C-5 will be unable to take off. This is weird but I can accept it. However, it is not clear how the number for "loaded plane" comes in. 769,000 lb is not equal to sum of any combination of numbers above.

If "Empty plane" is plane with fuel, but without cargo, it would imply that the plane without fuel weighs 337937 - 332500 = 5437 lbs, or roughly twice the weight of my car. --Itinerant1 03:29, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok here goes: The numbers aren't supposed to add up.
  • Empty plane is the weight of the plane, all avionics, and any working fluids (oil, hydraulic fluid, etc).
  • Full fuel load is the weight of the fuel if all tanks are filled to capacity.
  • Possible cargo is the weight of cargo that the plane can structurally take while still staying within weight and balance limitations.
  • Loaded plane is the total weight that the C-5 is normally restricted to taking off with.
  • MTO weight is the actual capacity take-off weight that the C-5 can handle, and it is only allowed to operate between the loaded and MTO limits under a special certificate issued only in wartime or emergencies (see above)
So, why the discrepency? You nailed it yourself; the plane can't carry a full load of cargo and fuel. Thus, for maximum range (full fuel load) the plane cannot be loaded to capacity, and for maximum capacity (full cargo load) the plane can't carry as much fuel and therefore can't fly as far. This is extremely common for aircraft of all sizes. Even a small Cessna 152 can't carry a full fuel load if the two occupants are heavyset people. -User:Lommer | talk 19:18, 14 December 2005 (UTC)


Ok here's a little more. Without getting overly technical, The "empty weight" (no fuel/cargo)is more like 380,000 lbs. This is an approximation since every plane has minor variations in construction as well as various modifications. This weight is the operating weight and includes emergency and other equipment that can vary based on the mission etc. Maximum peacetime weight is 769,000 lbs and emergency wartime weight is 840,000 lbs The term wartime is not necessarily accurate either. If the powers that be decide the situation warrants it, they will authorize it. This could be a national emergency such as 9/11 or disaster relief. Never saw a "special certificate", just some Generals name and a "waiver number" to cover everyone involved in case it plows off the end of the runway and hits a school bus.

[edit] c-5

In 1984, a C-5 took off with a weight of 920, 836 lbs., so I believe this is the maximum takeoff weight.

There's a big difference between *rated* MTOW and what actually worked on one occasion. The rated MTOW for an aircraft is supposed to be a reliable, reproducible number that the aircraft can be expected to accomplish under a general set of conditions.--chris.lawson 20:40, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Engine Thrust?

I'm a C5 Loadmaster, not an Engineer, but i do work with the engines, and I think the thrust is closer to 40k per engine. And yes, there is no way we could take off fully loaded with cargo and with full fuel.

[edit] I think this article needs

I think this article needs an infobox. JJ 18:36, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Language

Some anoying person keeps making this article's trivia section contain bad words, i think this page should be barred from editing...

The "bad words" are not just there for profanity's sake. Many military aircraft have nicknames as such. (i.e. the B-52 can be refered to as the BUFF, or Big-Ugly-Fat-Fucker.) You may want to take a look at Wikipedia:Profanity --KPWM_Spotter 01:55, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
That annoying person is me. Wikipedia is not censored for minors and there is a strict policy against bowdlerizing. - Emt147 Burninate! 01:07, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Military crews are renowned for their politeness among themselves, with nice fluffy nicknames for all of their war toys. Not. Th eproblem seems to be that the world is, rather than how you'd like it to be. Might as well get used to it. Graham 02:20, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Still, it seems a little vulgar, i guess its not the worse that's on the iternet, but my freind's kids are very interested in planes, and they shouldn't be learning language from the internet if we can help it...

While I personally agree with you about that, remember that Wikipedia is not censored for children --KPWM_Spotter 02:48, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I guess your right, but it really does seem like diffusion of social responsibility

What's wrong with you people who keep bowdlerizing this article? FRED does not stand for F-ing or F***ing or any other type of "let's pretend" word. This is the way things are-- bad language exists and is used. A lot. If you don't like it, go out and persuade every C-5 aircrew to stop calling the jet FRED. Good luck. Conn, Kit 19:48, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, I expect all of you who DO keep trying to "sanitise" this article never to use the acronyms "SNAFU" or "FUBAR" in your everyday conversation, lest you be accused of hypocrisy of the highest degree.--chris.lawson 22:55, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion - Breakdown of Variants

Just a quick suggestion. Might it be an idea to insert a new section and breakdown the C-5X variants so that the differences between them can be clearly explained? At the moment the History section contains details on the different types, but it's a bit convoluted. I found a couple of sites http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/c-5.htm and http://www.faqs.org/docs/air/avc5.html which seem to have some interesting details, but not being a subject matter expert myself I cannot comment on their validity.

Any experts out there?

--Lucanos 07:24, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
This article badly needs to be copyedited. The should be a separate Variants section per Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/page content. - Emt147 Burninate! 08:10, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re-engining program

What variant of the General Electric CF6 engine is being used in the C-5M program? GlobalSecurity.org and GE say the CF6-80, but this article says the CF6-50. --rogerd 16:40, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

The C-5M program utilizes the CF6-80C2L1F version of General Electric turbofan engine in use throughout the world. The specification called for thrust reversers capable of in flight deployment to allow maximum maneuverability (descent) in situations sometimes encountered by military aircraft. The engines have been "derated" to approximately 50,000 lbs thrust. This reduction was necessitated by structural limitations of the C-5 wing. A side benefit is increased longevity of the engine.

[edit] Trivia

I have removed the trivia section; if anyone feels the need to reinsert parts of it, it can be viewed here. My rationale is very simple: Wikipedia is not a compendium of every verifiable fact in existence. For example, the equivalences of its cargo capacity to other things like golf balls is a patent sample of Original Research. If our readers really want to put the abstract numbers in more concrete terms, then let them; we are giving satisfactory information already. Ingoolemo talk 19:48, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

  • The reason this article warrants a trivia section is not to create "a compendium of every verifiable fact in existence," but because by every stretch, the C-5 is not an average airplane. For someone who does not instantly understand that a 332,500 lb. fuel capacity is huge, etc., putting this information into more easily understandable terms is to the benefit, rather than the detriment of Wikipedia's quality. Conn, Kit 01:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose the removal The Trivia section should stay in some form or annother. I found it interesting, and it made some aspects of the plane easier to understand. I do think that the section should be limited to relevant and verifiable information though. --KPWM_Spotter 02:05, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Support the removal. There's utterly no point in using golf balls as a unit of volume. Wow, so the C-5 can fit three tanks.....even if it can't take off with them. What's the bloody point? --Mmx1 21:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Support removal we don't need junk facts. --rogerd 21:48, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
What is currently on the page as trivia aren't "junk facts" they are simply interesting tidbits of information that don't fit elsewhere. I agree that the number of golf balls isn't relevant, but that's not there currently. Random things, such as the total length of wiring, or the aircraft's nickname don't fit in the article anywhere else, but are things that someone doing research on the aircraft could use. --KPWM_Spotter 22:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Conditional fence-sitting: I support the trivia section, but nix the golf ball crap. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 23:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal with extreme prejudice until some of the above editors can demonstrate they've actually read the current trivia section, which does not repeat ANY information from elsewhere in the article and contains useful facts.--chris.lawson 01:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] C-5 Role?

The subject line states that the C-5 " replaces (and expands) the strategic airlift capacity formerly filled by the C-141 Starlifter" The first C-141 came along in 1964 and the C-5 in 1969. I hardly think the C-5 replaced the C-141! The C-141A carried approx 62,000 lbs on 10 standard pallets. Starting in the late 70's The C-141A was stretched to hold 13 standard pallets. A C-5 carries 36 pallets and as much as 270,000 lbs. On the other hand the C-17 came along in 1993, can carry 22 pallets or 160,000 lbs (not very far). If anything replaced the C-141B and expanded the strategic airlift capacity it was the C-17. With it's severly limited range, the C-17 makes a nice tactical tansport. If you want to move a lot of cargo a long way, call a C-5. During Desert Shield/Storm The C-5 fleet carried 44 percent of the cargo while comprising 12 percent of the total airlift fleet. Now that the C-17 proved what it can and can't do, the C-5 is starting to get the cash it needs to improve reliability with the C-5M program.

[edit] C-5M performance

The C-5M performance is only a prediction since it has not been flight tested yet. The maximum weights and speeds are not as of yet planned to be increased from C-5A/B numbers since these are mainly driven by airframe structural limitations.

[edit] Base Location Correction

Westover Air Base is not in New York, it's in Chicopee, Massachusetts. I live not far away and have had the opportunity to see C-5's taking off and flying overhead, going to and from Westover. Psicop 20:51, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dead link

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

maru (talk) contribs 02:52, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

problem was the ref entry at the end of the url; a whitespace fixed it. --Mmx1 03:12, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NOT World's largest plane

An 225 ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An-225 ) is both bigger, and carries more, I think this should be fixed up, as on the c-5 page it claims to be the biggest plane...but it isn't. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Starcraftmazter (talk • contribs) 07:32, June 21, 2006 (UTC)

The article says: "It is the largest American military transport and one of the largest military aircraft in the world", both statements are true. The article makes no claim to be the largest. --rogerd 14:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Right. 'One of the largest' means among the top ones. -Fnlayson 17:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Refueling Capable?

Which varient of the C-5 is capable of being refueled in-flight? C-5B? Where the C-5A models retrofitted and when? --TGC55 16:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

All 3 (well, 4 sorta) models have always been aerial refueling capable. Pheonix 06:12, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Sweden might buy 2

Sweden might buy 2 check my ip via whois ;)

Sweden might buy 2 we will know in about 2 weeks from today it is when the budget will be declared.

If Sweden buys 2 then america will not be the ONLY user

What is intresting is that Boeing have already started building the 2 without Sweden actually saying it will buy 2! 83.249.76.6 01:27, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

You are obviously confused with the C-17 Globemaster III, which Sweden is considering buying. The C-5 was built by Lockheed, not Boeing, and has been out of production since 1989. There is already coverage of Sweden and the C-17 in the C-17 article.--rogerd 02:11, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Doh  ;) 83.249.76.6 08:58, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Crew

I've never seen a C-5 operating with two Flight Engineers. There's a navigator station, but they don't even use them anymore. Pilot, Copilot, FE, and usually two loadtoads. And a flying crew chief if they're LUCKY. Excali 01:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


You're mistaken. The C-5 always flies with two FEs (one at the panel and one as the scanner) and missions almost always have a flying crew chief. Conn, Kit 03:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/-/5/Talk%7EC-5_Galaxy_2cd6.html"