Talk:C-5 Galaxy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.	Aviation Portal
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated projects or task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Aircraft WikiProject

	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 lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated task forces: This article has failed an A-Class review. This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces (general topics): Military aviation task force Associated task forces (nations and regions): United States military history task force

Archives

*June 2004 - December 2006

Contents 1 CX-HLS 2 C-5M 3 Other issues 4 Incidents and accidents 5 Article Improvement 6 Specifications 7 Retired aircraft 8 Crash info not cited 9 Incidents and accidents 10 Uncited statements removed. 11 High Value Asset 12 Added image 13 Larger yet weaker? 14 The largest airplane?

[edit] CX-HLS

Anyone have a good writeup of the CX-HLS competition? This article is hardly complete without it. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 21:40, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

• No, I need to work on that. The article really needs background info. The Global Security C-5 history page is one good place that covers that I think. Here's another page that covers it.[1] -Fnlayson 22:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] C-5M

C-5M is an official, though out-of-sequence, designation for C-5As and Bs which have undergone both the AMP and RERP upgrade programs. In light of that fact, why should the variants list say "C-5 modernization" instead of "C-5M". "Variants" is listed on WP:Air/PC as the preferred heading for such a section, and I see no reason to depart from it. - BillCJ 20:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• Argg.. nit picky change. The layout info on WP:Air/PC is stated as guidelines not requirements. Besides there are more information stuff that needs fixing here. -Fnlayson 21:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Also, the C-5M is a designation not a variant. Certaintly not a real variant considering some will be reworked Bs and others reworked As. -Fnlayson 21:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
  • You're arguing about nomenclature. What counts here is what the DoD thinks: [2]
    • OK, a new version. Just voicing some displeasure. Wasn't going to change it back on whim. -Fnlayson 22:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

There's really no difference between having "C-5A, C-5B, C-5C, C-5 Modernized" and "C-5A, C-5B, C-5C, C-5M" other than the uniformity of the latter, which is why I changed it to begin with. And I don't think wanting uniformity in the headings is being nit-picky.

Also, I assume the Air Force thinks the difference between the modernized As and Bs it not worth having separate designations. - BillCJ 22:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• Actually, Bill, once an A and B model are modernized, they are largely the same. The A models received the B wing in the 1980s. With new engines, avionics, and flight control surfaces as part of the M upgrade, what is left to be different? —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 23:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually, that was the point I was trying to make! What ever differences there are would be minor. - BillCJ 23:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
    • There are still differences. A models don't have flares, for one. I've only seen the first completely modernized C-5 once, but the ones with the amp mods are still referred to as B's or A's. 69.181.90.66 09:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
• Sorry about my fussing. You're right. It was not that big of a deal. -Fnlayson 06:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  • It's not likely the A models will get the new engines at this point. -Fnlayson 13:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Not only that, it's possible that the entire program might be scrubbed. The cost overruns are becoming ridiculous. Khakain 07:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Per this op-ed, the USAF is seriously considering not modernizing the C-5As at this point, which already average 35 years of age, and just modernizing the Bs. They would then order 50-60 C-17s to fill in the gap, as C-17s ae much in demand because of their rough-field capability. A lot of it depends on who wins the 2008 US pres elections, as a certain party is always reluctant to spend money on defense (and they control the COngress right now too, so that affect matters). - BillCJ 17:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Other issues

Looks like several parts of this article are copied right from the US AF fact sheet and Global Security page (maybe others?). Is that OK? I don't see copyright statements on either site. -Fnlayson 23:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

USAF fact sheet: OK, GlobalSecurity: not OK —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 01:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Joseph is correct, see U.S. government works --rogerd 01:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. That's what I thought. - Fnlayson 13:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Incidents and accidents

What's the difference between an incident and an accident? Maybe an incident more minor. Thanks. -Fnlayson 04:29, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

You would expect something serious in an accident like damage or total destruction of the aircraft, with injuries or fatalities to the crew. An incident will something minor like say near misses.--PremKudva^Talk 04:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• OK, I was heading that way anyhow. Thanks for clarifying. -Fnlayson 05:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

NTSB Part 830 defines "accident" with very specific wording: 49 CFR 830.2. Have a read of that.--chris.lawson 21:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I like how the incidents and accidents section is longer than the history of the plane. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.196.104.34 (talk • contribs)

• Yea, it seems the incident/accident information is more readily available to add to the article. More information should be added to the History section. -Fnlayson 21:51, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

The C-5 Galaxy that crashed recently at Dover was not caused by a thrust reverser deploying. It crashed due to crew error. The crew simply got an indication that the thrust reverser was no longer locked, not that it had actually moved, much less deployed. They reacted completely erroneously, and wound up dumping it in the field. The malfunction that occurred is somewhat common and easily correctable, and had they followed the proper procedures, the plane would have landed fine. [3]-- 66.173.242.226 09:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• The entry already says it was human error near the end of the entry. The first sentence should be reworded though. -Fnlayson 13:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I added 70-0446 incident/accident that happened 31 July 1983. The aircraft landed short of the runway (an embankment 50 feet high). So short, 3 threshold lights and the telephone poles they sat on were topped. The main landing gear, one third of the cargo floor, aft pressure, and cargo doors were ripped off. The aircraft was landing in minimums, doing a PAR approach. Cause and contibuting factors; instrumentation, inexperienced copilot, and pilot duck under when going visual in weather. -Kboughner 16:40 15 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article Improvement

I think the section layout is fine now. I moved some sections so they better match other aircraft articles. Anyway, I'm trying to add info to the History section to fill in the time span. Suggestions and/or help would sure be appreciated. -Fnlayson 21:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

This article failed A-class review. However, addressing the C-5 review comments will help this article. -Fnlayson 13:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Specifications

A couple days ago, I updated the range and speed using manufacturer's data.[4] I expect this to be newer and more accurate than the NASA Quest for performance (1985) data.[5] If anyone has newer and more accurate data from a verifiable source, please post it. -Fnlayson 01:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Retired aircraft

• There's a subsection in Development section for retired planes now. It seems a bit out of place there. Should this be treated like a Surviors section in other articles and be moved to later in article? -Fnlayson 02:03, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I was wondering the same thing when I renamed the main section (and thanks for catching the typo). The "Survivors" section usually covers preserved or displayed airframes, and this are just stored airframes for parts, as far as I can tell. We don't usually have that kind of info in an aircraft article, but that doesn't mean it's not noteworthy either. I OK with it in either place. - BillCJ 02:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• OK. It'll be fine where it is, unless someone gets a better idea. The fact they are tearing down and inspecting them is good reason to have it in there, I think. -Fnlayson 02:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

We might just remove the sub-heading, and tweak it just a bit for flow with the preceeding section. - BillCJ 02:15, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• OK, I went with that. -Fnlayson 02:30, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Added the one known survivor in a Museum, with ref. Maybe change the heading as "On display" or "Retired on display"... "Survivor usual is typically used for a/c out of production and or service. I may have hastely named it Survivor. LanceBarber 03:45, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Crash info not cited

Other incidents that destroyed C-5s

• May 25, 1970 -- Burned aircraft at Palmdale, Calif., during a flight test.
• Oct. 17, 1970 -- Also burned during a flight test, this time at Marietta, Ga.
• Sept. 27, 1974 -- Crashed at Clinton Municipal Airport, Okla.
• April 5, 1975 -- Crashed in Saigon, Vietnam, during Operation Babylift.
• Aug. 29, 1990 -- Crashed at Ramstein Air Base, Germany, during Operation Desert Storm.
• April 3, 2006 -- Crashed at Dover AFB

These are the 6 that are reported by the USAF.^[1] Proper citation needs to be done. I will do these six.

However, the inicidents are not cited, the remaining four '82,'83,'90, and '01 events will be deleted if they are not properly referenced. LanceBarber 01:43, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Concur. Also, the 2006 Dover crash details are pretty extensive. I think it'd b4e a good candidate to split off as an accident article. I'll be Checking with the Aviation Accident Task FOrce to see if it's warranted. - BillCJ 02:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

• If you think about it, add fact tags to the entries that don't have references. Thanks. -Fnlayson 02:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
• Bill has a good idea. Maybe the originator can. I don't have time this week, maybe next. Busy marshalling EAA's B-17 Aluminum Overcast all this week at Centennial Airport, CO. Playing with the old 'birds' is more fun than writing about them. LanceBarber 04:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Incidents and accidents

This is somewhat related to the above posts, but I've noticed the Dover crash section keeps getting bigger! I've added a {{trim}} template, and I am going to try again to see if the Dover incident is worthy of it's own page. THat's a lot of info for only one source, and I wouldn't be surprised if most of it wasn't in the source. THat would mena alot of work for someone creating the new article to find more sources. I'll try to check it all out later today, and do some serious cutting. If the recent Dover additions are unsourced, I plan on warning the user who keeps adding it. - BillCJ 17:41, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder Bill. I promised to delete the 4 uncited incidents back in June. Well, how about this... here are 4 extracted incidents that can/will/should be deleted. They can be kept here until references can be found:

• Aircraft 66-8306 (C-5A) was badly damaged on September 29, 1971 in Altus AFB, OK when the #1 engine and pylon broke loose and separated from the wing during the take-off roll. ^{[citation needed]}
• Aircraft 70-0467 (C-5A) and 70-0466 (C-5A) were damaged in May 1982 when a tornado hit Altus (OK) AFB. The radome of 70-0467 was destroyed when it was struck by the right wingtip of the other C-5A. Both aircraft were repaired and returned to service. No injuries on the aircraft. ^{[citation needed]}
• Aircraft 70-0446 (C-5A) was damaged attempting to land at Shemya Air Force Base on July 31, 1983. The flight originated from Elmendorf Air Force Base as part of a routine resupply mission. None of the 12 member crew or 4 passengers were injured. Major damage was sustained to the aft main landing gear and cargo compartment floor. The aircraft was repaired and returned to service.^{[citation needed]}
• Aircraft 68-0216 (C-5A) was badly damaged during a belly landing in 1983 at Travis AFB, CA. The crew had been performing touch-and-go approaches to the runway, and failed to extend the landing gear on final approach. The aircraft was rebuilt as a C-5C. ^{[citation needed]}
• Aircraft 70-0461 (C-5A) experienced a nose gear separation on August 16, 2001 at Travis AFB, CA while attempting to take off. At the time of the incident the C-5A was assigned to the 436th Airlift Wing at Dover Air Force Base and was returning there from the Pacific theater. ^{[citation needed]}

Will double check before the deletion. LanceBarber 03:20, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

USAF 6 cited incidents:

• May 25, 1970 -- Burned aircraft at Palmdale, Calif., during a flight test.
• Oct. 17, 1970 -- Also burned during a flight test, this time at Marietta, Ga.
• Sept. 27, 1974 -- Crashed at Clinton Municipal Airport, Okla.
• April 5, 1975 -- Crashed in Saigon, Vietnam, during Operation Babylift.
• Aug. 29, 1990 -- Crashed at Ramstein Air Base, Germany, during Operation Desert Storm.
• Apr. 3, 2006 -- accident at Dover AFB

Recheck, to be deleted: '71, '82, 2 in '83, and '01. Added the other '83 back in above list. LanceBarber

• This looks alright to me. A lot of these are minor things as well. Mainly the '82 and '01 ones. -Fnlayson 19:21, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

"All 17 aboard survived, 15 with no injuries, 3 with serious." doesn't add up; 15 + 3 = 18 != 17. Does anybody know the actual figures? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.228.99.226 (talk) 16:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Uncited statements removed.

• The C-5 is also known as "FRED" (F&%king Ridiculous Economic/Environmental Disaster) by its crews due to its reliability issues and large consumption of fuel.^{[citation needed]} Originated with high initial price tag and conspicuous major problems. (Can be added back with valid citation.LanceBarber 05:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks. That used to be in the Trivia section, but trivia purge got it moved up in the article. -Fnlayson 05:20, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

My aunt flies C5s out of Dover AFB, so I could get a fully detailed description on exactly what happended if need be. She knew the pilot, and was on-base at the time. --Spitfire2170 16:27, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

That's a very kind offer to consult with your aunt, but unfortunately, that would constitute original research, and would be disallowed. However, if you aunt could point to verifiable and reliable sources, that would be most helpful. AKRadecki^Speaketh 17:13, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] High Value Asset

There might be justification for an article dealing with the general concept, but I think it's worth mentioning that the C-5 falls into this category. Some of the operational aspects of an HVA is that deadly force is authorized to protect it on the ground, it tries to stay very far from the FEBA, and is heavily escorted when it has to go "downtown", or even into the suburbs. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 08:52, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

• That's related to how Stragetic airlift works, right? Tactical airlift is within the theater and close to forward battle areas. Strategic is long range and away from battle areas. Just need a reference to add it to this stuff to the article. I can probably find something for Strategic airlift, but don't know about High Value Asset. The C-5's usage like that goes in the Operational history section, btw. -Fnlayson 17:16, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Added image

Hey guys, in the Operators section I have added an image showing a huge sign at the entrance gate of the TANG 164th Airlift Wing base at Memphis International Airport. I could park my car right next to the entrance and was not bothered at all for making photos of it. They have it in a right angle to the road, so you cannot even accidentally get something on the photo that is security related. That is a pretty good idea. I like the graphics of the sign, the three mighty planes coming in. Maybe you like it, too. doxTxob \ ^talk 00:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Larger yet weaker?

Even though the C-5 is much larger than a B-747, its engines are significantly weaker (only 190kN of thrust versus 225-275kN). This contradiction should be explained in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.83.22.105 (talk) 10:49, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

• Which specs for the C-5 are much larger than the 747? Depends on which 747 variant is used, but the length and span are only a few percent larger for the C-5. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

The C-5 used the TF39 engine, which was the first high-bypass turbofan engine to enter production, at least). The generation that followed the TF39, such as the CF6, had higher thust, and successively-improved versiojns are used one each new variant or modle of airliner such as the 747. The C-5's engines were never upgraded, thought the Replacement Engine and Reiliability Program (RERP) was designed to replece the ancient TF39s with newer model engines. - BillCJ (talk) 18:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The largest airplane?

When Airbus came out with the A380, is the A380 larger then the C-5? The C-5 used to be the largest plane, next to the B-747, the A380 is larger then the 747, but is the A380 lager then the C-5? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.55.36.88 (talk) 21:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Could be subjective depending on what measurement you take, the C-5 is longer by nearly 8 feet but the A380 has a wider wing span (nearly 40 foot more span) and is taller (by nearly six feet). MilborneOne (talk) 21:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, OK. Which one has more sq. ft. in the interior? Does anybody know where there is specs. for the A380 or C-5?

The Antonov An-225, first flown in 1988, is larger than either the C-5 or A380 in weight, length, and wingspan. The A380 has a slightly taller tail, though, and possibly more interior space; although the Antonov has a higher payload capacity. 67.189.54.62 (talk) 23:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)