That's one big friggin plane

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

OutHouse

Lifer
Jun 5, 2000
36,413
616
126
Originally posted by: trilks
I have heard that the AF is becoming less reliant on the C-5 because of its size. It can't take off from smaller airports, so it is limited in where it can go. I think the C-17 Globemaster and C-130 Hercules are the transports of choice.

That said, the C-5 is still a workhorse, and I don't think there is another military plane that can transport as much cargo.

The Russian Cossock (sp) is bigger than the C-5....
 

OutHouse

Lifer
Jun 5, 2000
36,413
616
126
Originally posted by: fredtam
Originally posted by: Citrix
umm maybe support missions? MAC crews get stationed all over the world. Its not unusual to see other branch aircraft parked at another branches airbase. WHen i was at Nellis AFB We had a squadron of F-14's permantly stationed there. Or maybe the landing strips at Travis are being redone. When i was at Grand Forks AFB they had to rebuild our runways so all of our KC-135's and B-1b's had to be stationed at another base for a few months. Man that was nice and quiet, but when they reopned the runway those damn hotdog pilots let everybody know they were back.

I already said you could be right. Just so used to seeing them at a MCAS

sorry didnt see your edit.
 

CPA

Elite Member
Nov 19, 2001
30,322
4
0
Originally posted by: Citrix
Originally posted by: trilks
I have heard that the AF is becoming less reliant on the C-5 because of its size. It can't take off from smaller airports, so it is limited in where it can go. I think the C-17 Globemaster and C-130 Hercules are the transports of choice.

That said, the C-5 is still a workhorse, and I don't think there is another military plane that can transport as much cargo.

The Russian Cossock (sp) is bigger than the C-5....

According to the accompanying article to that pic, it states the C5 is the largest airplane in the free world. Maybe they don't consider Russia free?
 

OutHouse

Lifer
Jun 5, 2000
36,413
616
126
Originally posted by: CPA
Originally posted by: Citrix
Originally posted by: trilks
I have heard that the AF is becoming less reliant on the C-5 because of its size. It can't take off from smaller airports, so it is limited in where it can go. I think the C-17 Globemaster and C-130 Hercules are the transports of choice.

That said, the C-5 is still a workhorse, and I don't think there is another military plane that can transport as much cargo.

The Russian Cossock (sp) is bigger than the C-5....

According to the accompanying article to that pic, it states the C5 is the largest airplane in the free world. Maybe they don't consider Russia free?

yip kinda biased but the C-5 is the second largest in the whole world. i guess they got a little pissed when the Russians built that monster and had to edit their claim. :D

edit. if there is one thing the Russians know how to do very well is build BIG things. their helios are fricken massive.
 

fredtam

Diamond Member
Jun 6, 2003
5,694
2
76
Originally posted by: Citrix
Originally posted by: CPA
Originally posted by: Citrix
Originally posted by: trilks
I have heard that the AF is becoming less reliant on the C-5 because of its size. It can't take off from smaller airports, so it is limited in where it can go. I think the C-17 Globemaster and C-130 Hercules are the transports of choice.

That said, the C-5 is still a workhorse, and I don't think there is another military plane that can transport as much cargo.

The Russian Cossock (sp) is bigger than the C-5....

According to the accompanying article to that pic, it states the C5 is the largest airplane in the free world. Maybe they don't consider Russia free?

yip kinda biased but the C-5 is the second largest in the whole world. i guess they got a little pissed when the Russians built that monster and had to edit their claim. :D

edit. if there is one thing the Russians know how to do very well is build BIG things. their helios are fricken massive.


And TOUGH things. I was watching a documentary where they landed a Mig 25 with no landing gear. Jacked it up. Dropped the gear and took off again. They also use runways that simulate wartime conditions. Paraphrased the commi pilot said "you americans build planes like fine Swiss watches. We build ours like tanks".
 

Rallispec

Lifer
Jul 26, 2001
12,373
3
81
I was doing some work down at Little ROck air force base back in the spring, which is where they station a good part of the C-130's.... And i thought those planes were huge....... Until one day a C-5 landed, and you could almost fit an entire C-130 under the wing of the C-5. Damn impressive planes.
 

KDOG

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
5,561
14
81
My wife and were driving back from Paris on our way back to Hahn AB and as we were driving by Ramstein we saw the fireball from when the C-5 crashed.

I doubt it. I was at Ramstein when it happened. I was also there for the famous Flutag disaster, but thats another story. The C5 crashed in the wee hours of the morning in a field just past the runway. What happened was the number 1 thrust reverser opened for some unknown reason. It pitched wildly to the left and basically hit the ground upside down. the only place you could really see the wreckage is the main highway that runs parallel to the highway up to the main gate, which could also be used as an alternate runway, since it was a dead end about a mile and half the other way. There was an exit that led down to another road that passed under the gate road. I was there when my dad was in the air force, he worked on the plane just before it took off, and they had a whole lot of questions for him and everyone else who even touched that airplane. But what he worked on had nothing to do with the crash so he didn't have anything to worry about...
 

Scarpozzi

Lifer
Jun 13, 2000
26,389
1,778
126
That's pretty cool...I guess they'll have to get a couple of tow carts to drag it backwards... :p
 

KDOG

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
5,561
14
81
Oh and Dover AFB, DE and Travis AFB, CA are the 2 home bases for the C5. On a side note, the Air Force has officially retired the C141, the C17 is to take the main spot as the premier cargo aircraft. When I was in the Air Force I was Fire/Rescue and let me tell you, lugging a 250 lb dude out of there with my gear on was NOT fun, that plane gave me nightmares. I was stationed at Dover and we had a flight line full of them. (shudder).
 

AndrewR

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
11,157
0
0
I have heard that the AF is becoming less reliant on the C-5 because of its size. It can't take off from smaller airports, so it is limited in where it can go. I think the C-17 Globemaster and C-130 Hercules are the transports of choice.

Partially the size, partially the reliability. C-5s have a reputation for breaking. We've had some static C-5 displays here over the past couple years. They stand out. :) I saw a guy standing next to one on the flightline the other day, and those things are just stupidly immense.

It's really the C-17 that's being favored over the C-5, not the C-130, because the Hercules is not a strategic airlifter, and the cargo capacities don't even remotely compare. C-130 has its niche, and it doesn't overlap with the C-17 or the C-5. Too bad the latest C-130, the J model, is turning out to be a big boondoggle.

That said, the C-5 is still a workhorse, and I don't think there is another military plane that can transport as much cargo.

Not in the US military inventory, but the Russian An-124 Condor certainly can.

They also use runways that simulate wartime conditions.

Don't get me started with this myth. Russian aircraft use the same engine technology as Western aircraft, although it's more maintenance intensive (mean time between overhauls for Russian engines is significantly higher). The whole thing about "unimproved runways" comes from the fact that the MiG-29, and that plane alone, has air intakes on the top of the wing/fuselage which can be used on the ground to minimize the risk of debris entering the engine.

I guarantee that you throw a rock into a Russian jet engine, it will be damaged in the same way that a US engine would be. They don't have some super secret turbine blade material that can resist impact damage.
 

trilks

Golden Member
Aug 16, 2002
1,117
0
0
Originally posted by: AndrewR
I have heard that the AF is becoming less reliant on the C-5 because of its size. It can't take off from smaller airports, so it is limited in where it can go. I think the C-17 Globemaster and C-130 Hercules are the transports of choice.

Partially the size, partially the reliability. C-5s have a reputation for breaking. We've had some static C-5 displays here over the past couple years. They stand out. :) I saw a guy standing next to one on the flightline the other day, and those things are just stupidly immense.

It's really the C-17 that's being favored over the C-5, not the C-130, because the Hercules is not a strategic airlifter, and the cargo capacities don't even remotely compare. C-130 has its niche, and it doesn't overlap with the C-17 or the C-5. Too bad the latest C-130, the J model, is turning out to be a big boondoggle.

That said, the C-5 is still a workhorse, and I don't think there is another military plane that can transport as much cargo.

Not in the US military inventory, but the Russian An-124 Condor certainly can.

My bad, I should have clarified: largest American military cargo plane.

Are the An-124 and An-225 military cargo? I always thought they were general heavy cargo planes. Not that it makes a huge difference, they are still greater than or equal to the C-5 in size.
 

KeithP

Diamond Member
Jun 15, 2000
5,660
198
106
The photo is a fake.

Here is another picture of a C5.

Notice how low (relatively) they sit to the ground. In the picture provided, the nose wheel would be hanging in the air about 25 feet. Plus, the CG would have to be so far back, to keep the nose in the air like that, there would be no way it could fly.

-KeithP
 

OutHouse

Lifer
Jun 5, 2000
36,413
616
126
Originally posted by: KDOG
My wife and were driving back from Paris on our way back to Hahn AB and as we were driving by Ramstein we saw the fireball from when the C-5 crashed.

I doubt it. I was at Ramstein when it happened. I was also there for the famous Flutag disaster, but thats another story. The C5 crashed in the wee hours of the morning in a field just past the runway. What happened was the number 1 thrust reverser opened for some unknown reason. It pitched wildly to the left and basically hit the ground upside down. the only place you could really see the wreckage is the main highway that runs parallel to the highway up to the main gate, which could also be used as an alternate runway, since it was a dead end about a mile and half the other way. There was an exit that led down to another road that passed under the gate road. I was there when my dad was in the air force, he worked on the plane just before it took off, and they had a whole lot of questions for him and everyone else who even touched that airplane. But what he worked on had nothing to do with the crash so he didn't have anything to worry about...

ummm so what exactly do you doubt? I was on leave dude, my wife and i just got off the train from paris and had our car parked at the Bahnhoff in some town that i cant remember. yes you are correct the crash did happen in the wee hours of the morning. i saw the flames from it. Also I am quite familar with the layout of the base. I spent a lot of time there during Operation Desert Shield doing my security police thing.
 

OutHouse

Lifer
Jun 5, 2000
36,413
616
126
Originally posted by: KeithP
The photo is a fake.

Here is another picture of a C5.

Notice how low (relatively) they sit to the ground. In the picture provided, the nose wheel would be hanging in the air about 25 feet. Plus, the CG would have to be so far back, to keep the nose in the air like that, there would be no way it could fly.

-KeithP

the nose gear are on hydrolics, they can rais the front end up and down, hell i have seen the front opening actually sitting about 1 inch off the ground.

edit. the main gear can do the samething for the rear end as well. the whole plane can be raised or lowered. the pic in the OP is not a fake, that is exactly what a C-5 looks like when its ready for flight.


second edit

"A "kneeling" landing gear system that permits lowering of the parked aircraft so the cargo floor is at truck-bed height or to facilitate vehicle loading and unloading"

from here.
 

Thump553

Lifer
Jun 2, 2000
12,693
2,456
126
They flew one of those big Russian transports into Bradley Airport (CT) a few years back. It totally dwarfed anything around it. There were no C-5s there but I've seen them before and the Russian plane impressed me as being a whole lot bigger.
 

KeithP

Diamond Member
Jun 15, 2000
5,660
198
106
edit. the main gear can do the samething for the rear end as well. the whole plane can be raised or lowered. the pic in the OP is not a fake, that is exactly what a C-5 looks like when its ready for flight.

I do not believe the aircraft's landing gear allows for that much height. I have seen plenty of them take off and they do not sit that high, not even close. Loaded or not.

I am going to have to respectfully disagree here and stick with what I said. It is a fake. It is a photo that is being passed around with an email which should be the first warning sign about the validity. However, if you can find a article at a legitmate news source that has the same picture please post it. I am ready to be proven wrong.

-KeithP
 

GTaudiophile

Lifer
Oct 24, 2000
29,776
31
81
I would like to see a pic in a few years of a C-5 Galaxy parked next to an Airbus A380!

While on the topic of airplanes, I had the pleasure of seeing four brand-new Lufthansa A340-600s parked side-by-side in front of the Frankfurt airport three weeks ago.

The 340-600 is the longest commercial aircraft ever built: seen here parked next to a Korean 777.