Posted on 11/23/2005 8:21:14 PM PST by Paleo Conservative
The CF6-80 used on the 747-400 is rated at 63,300 pounds. The CF6-80 engines used on the C-5M will be a derated version of the more modern and efficient model used on the 747-400 and the VC-25 (Airforce One). The VC-25 is nominally a 747-200, but has much of the 747-400's system improvements. It has the more powerful and efficent engines of the 747-400 while also having the twin seat 747-400 glass cockpit. With a light fuel and cargo load it can take off from much shorter runways than most 747's.
L-3 Spar Aerospace is doing the upgrade/conversion work on Canada's C-130's and 2 L-100's. L-3 srock has been berry berry good to me. Thru good management and very smart acquisitions they have positioned themselves smartly around the world in the aviation business.
no way!
I won't go negative on Airbus. They are a solid player. Major concerns I have heard about them is a)supply chain on parts 2)field and depot maintenance training for staff. (Bottom line - Boeing, Lockheed, McD. have been the main game and mechanics know them) 3)Entry costs of switch overs. Its not just introducing a new model - this would be an entire new system. Big money and time when hostilities are on everyones mind and they need a/c now.
Last C5 I saw was leaving Phoenix after the Presidential debate.
But I would go to the end of Lagoone drive at Honolulu airport and watch them take off.
Nice big planes.
I don't mean to be negative. It's just that the A400M is behind schedule, and it's a lot cheaper to upgrade existing C-130's now and defer making a decision on a C-130 replacement for a couple of decades when technology will be even better. The RAF is leasing 4 C-17's now for its special forces due to the unavailability of the A400M. They seem to be interested in converting the C-17 leases to purchases and adding another one to their fleet.
The TF-39 engines in the C-5A puts out only 41,000 pounds of thrust. The TF-39's in the C-5B are a little better with 43,000 pounds. I can't understand why Lockheed didn't put more modern CF6 engines in the C-5B when they originally manufactured them. The availability of spare engines for the C-5's that have not yet been upgraded should improve as more C-5's get converted to C-5M's.
I think it was the original 747-100 that had around 47K of thrust per engine. Maybe the high wing of the C-5 helps with lift and obviates the need for more powerful engines??
For those who want to hear (and see) a C-5 take off.
http://www.flightlevel350.com/viewer.php?id=333
Hmmmm ... that's quite a bit of dust for a landing on a flat top. Are you sure about that photo(shop)?
Those engines should be in museums. They were a great advance in the 1960's, but they are more primitive than any engine used on any 747 or DC-10. The new CF6-80's will allow engines to stay on the wings for at least 10,000 hours between overhauls. The current engines are lucky to get 2,000 hours. The range, maximum takeoff weight, runway performance, and time to climb to cruising altitude will all improve drastically.
Bottom line...she's BIG and she's BAD!
The C-5 has been a great airplane, but it has been plagued by the TF-39 engine, lousy thrust reversers, and an overall mission reliability that hovered in the mid 60% to maybe 70% range, while the C-141 and C-130 were usually 85% or better. Aircraft like the C-17 average around 94% mission reliability.
This upgrade is a good decision. It would cost hundreds of billions to manufacture over 100 C-5s from scratch today, and with a "small" investment, we will have that airlift capability for many years to come. You just don't send 60 airframes like the C-5 to the bone yard. It would be akin to throwing away 60 Stradivarius violins worth millions because their strings are broken.
Now that this nation is finally getting more C-17s, the addition of a much improved C-5 will give our nation the outsize and oversized cargo capability we need. In a crisis like Katrina, everyone wants airlift---NOW! Unless we have these airframes on hand, the media, Congress, and critics can go to the microphones all they want and bitch. It was aircraft like the C-5 and C-17 that delivered the huge pumps from Germany and the Netherlands that started pumping out massive quantities of water in the first days of the crisis. If we didn't have these aircraft, then no pumps. Does the lame media and the sheeple get that?
It was C-5s and C-17s that rescued elderly people by the hundreds from nursing homes in Beaumont TX and Lake Charles LA, while hurricane Rita was literally minutes from making landfall. The last aircraft took off from Lake Charles just at the hurricane approached. This news release does not even begin to mention the danger--the winds were out of limits and the aircraft barely made it out. Those people would have died without these 9-11 emergency aircraft on alert.
Yup and the pilot got a medal for even trying it! He did like 20 cycles. - not just once!
Why not retrofit the C-5 with the F117 engine (P & W 2040) that the C-17 uses to reduce your spare parts inventory?
Granted a little less thrust, perhaps an upgrade/push would benefit both airframes.
Now if it was a hybrid pylon down upgrade and used the C-17's Nacelles and reverser's that may be sweet.
Ahhh - memories of aluminum overcast. But it's still nothing more than a really big, slow target.
In other news....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.