Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: AlaskaErik; Paulus Invictus
I believe the technical term would be "piss poor reliability". C-5s break down over half the time. That means every other mission is cancelled or delayed due to maintenance issues. Reminds me of the old joke...You're on an Air Force base and see three C-5s, two of which are sitting on jacks. What can you deduce from this sight?

It isn't designed as a passenger plane. Even if the tooling still existed, no airline would pay a premium price for a plane that is primarily designed as an military over-sized cargo plane. The kneeling landing gear just adds weight and gives no advantage to a passenger airliner. The high wing puts the engines at the level where the passengers would be sitting making the cabin noisier. Lockheed wanted to make a civilian over-sized cargo version, but no one was interested back in the early 1970's or later in the late 1980's when the 50 C-5B models were built.

Of the surviving 126 C-5's 110 of them will undergo the Avionics Modernization Program (AMP) and later the Reliability Enhancement and Re-Engining Program (RERP). The C-5 was a victim of the Vietnam war. Congress underfunded programs to fix the C-5's problems and buy spare parts. The AMP and RERP programs will solve those problems using of the shelf commercial technology like the same CF6-80-2 engines used on what will be over 700 747-400's and hundreds of 767's. There are so many thousands of these engines that there should be no problem getting parts and service from the commercial sector for years to come. Several test C-5B's and one C-5A have already undergone the AMP part of the modernization program which puts a modern glass cockpit based on avionics processors used in the 777. The upgraded C-5's will be called the C-5M regardless of whether it is an upgraded A or B model. I'm not quite sure what the designation for the 2 upgraded C-5C's will be. The upgrades will improve the reliability so they will be available at least 75% of the time but possibly even 85% like the C-17 and other Air Force transports. It will increase the maximum takeoff weight while decreasing the runway length needed to take off fully loaded. The improvement in fuel economy will decrease operating costs by 34% per hour and 44% per ton mile. The first C-5M has just had its new engines mounted.

Here is an article about the first C-5M which just had its new eingins installed.

C-5 upgrades a bit more clear for Robins visionaries (Links to photos)
Macon.com ^ | Wed, Nov. 16, 2005 | Gene Rector

Posted on 11/23/2005 10:21:14 PM CST by Paleo Conservative

28 posted on 11/25/2005 2:29:37 PM PST by Paleo Conservative (Hey hey ho ho Andy Heyward's got to go!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies ]


To: Paleo Conservative

You're right, but I figured I'd let someone with more knowledge explain some of the other reasons for not turning the C-5 into an airliner.


44 posted on 11/25/2005 9:31:38 PM PST by AlaskaErik (Everyone should have a subject they are ignorant about. I choose professional corporate sports.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson