It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

C-5M makes first flight

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 20 2006 @ 04:38 PM
link   
The Lockheed C-5M Galaxy has made its first flight, here is a link with some pictures included

C-5M flies

[edit on 20-6-2006 by waynos]




posted on Jun, 20 2006 @ 04:46 PM
link   
I wondered what was up with this project. They had been talking about it for awhile then I suddenly stopped hearing about it. Good to see it coming to fruition at last.


jra

posted on Jun, 20 2006 @ 04:55 PM
link   
Very cool. Nice to see them upgrading these. What's with the pointy red nose though?



posted on Jun, 20 2006 @ 04:59 PM
link   
it's just test instrumentation for the development flights, it isn't a standard feature.



posted on Jun, 20 2006 @ 09:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by jra
Very cool. Nice to see them upgrading these. What's with the pointy red nose though?


Its a pitot tube, used for measuring airspeed. you will see it on almost all US test A/C for the past 50 years.



plus General Electric CF6 engines with a 22% thrust increase.


Great move, this upgrade has been needed for years. An engine failure with a heavy load right after takeoff can be catastrophic.

You would think GE90-110 would be a better choice.



[edit on 20-6-2006 by uuhelpus]



posted on Jun, 20 2006 @ 09:51 PM
link   
It's not just a pitot tube in this case. As waynos said it's filled with instrumentation. It monitors altitude, airspeed, and a number of other factors during the flight.



posted on Jun, 21 2006 @ 12:36 AM
link   
Ahh so that what it was. I saw it when I was driving back from hiking on Kennesaw Mt. The engine noise slightly is different from other C-5s. It was more whiny than a typical C-5. Hope it sells, Atl could always use more jobs. Anyone got a test schedule? I can run out to KMGE and take some pics. You can definitely hear the wake turb when one of those puppies passes over you.



posted on Jun, 21 2006 @ 08:13 AM
link   
It's not a new plane. It's a C-5B that's being upgraded to a new standard. All but 14 of them are getting the upgrade.



posted on Jun, 21 2006 @ 08:31 AM
link   
Nice to see Big Ugly getting a face lift. If you ever have have a chance to take a tour of a C-5 you won't be disappointed. I've been to several airshows that have had a C-5 on static display. More than a few times there has been some rain and everybody has taken shelter inside and under the wings of the C-5. I worked for Kaman Aerospace in Jacksonville, Florida in the late 80's building the wing flaps for the C-5B, so I'm kind of fond of Big Ugly.



posted on Jun, 21 2006 @ 10:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by JIMC5499
I've been to several airshows that have had a C-5 on static display. More than a few times there has been some rain and everybody has taken shelter inside and under the wings of the C-5.


Ive had that experience too! At Finningley many years ago everyone piled into the hold of the static C-5 during a downpour. When it was full some wag shouted out "Everyone aboard captain, lets go!"



posted on Jun, 21 2006 @ 02:52 PM
link   
The C-130J has new engines which had to be massively derated in U.S. service because the power margin they 'best cruise' generated wasn't compatible with the airframe design and profile.

Pacer Crag and Blk.30 have brought the KC-135 out of the steam gauge if not stone age era into compatibility with modern ATC regs if nothing else. Yet the airframes continue to 'droop' for want of Just Plain Old Age fatgue issues.

As such, reading about EFIS and CF-6 on an aircraft /known/ for structural problems in the past, I wonder how much of the C-5M project is make work and how much is really going to bring the Grey Giant up to snuff in terms of useful payload margins and competiveness with commercial carriers for the majority of the stuff that the USAF does everyday.

It's one thing to insist on having a global deployability system for outsize and superhefty payloads. It's another to justify it as a function of working expeditionary logistics models and alternative (Marine or PPME) assets which are either a lot closer to begin with or can make use of the new objective/medium combat brigades supposedly lighter throw weight.

For the 'Dixie Cups to Lapaz' AMC stuff, I just don't see the Galaxy as being all that efficient an airlifter for fleet size or (tasked) unit projection readiness.


KPl.



posted on Jun, 21 2006 @ 03:02 PM
link   
Okay, a little further research shows that the C-5M package includes not only glass as part of the AMP but also a 'RERP' or Reliability Enhancement and Reengining Program which appears to cover some outstanding issues with component lifing and DMS sourcing on the flight controls. I'm still surprised they haven't had to do another big structural replace and reskin effort but it looks like they are doing some good-

www.military-aerospace-technology.com...


KPl.



posted on Jun, 21 2006 @ 03:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
It's not a new plane. It's a C-5B that's being upgraded to a new standard. All but 14 of them are getting the upgrade.


whats happening to the other 14? why arent they being upgraded? are they being scrapped, or are they being upgraded at a later date due to financial difficulties?

justin



posted on Jun, 21 2006 @ 04:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
It's not a new plane. It's a C-5B that's being upgraded to a new standard. All but 14 of them are getting the upgrade.


Yeah I got that, but I was under the impression that the contact was not a done deal. Thus the test rig. Sorry, jump all over me GOOODDDD! ROLF!



posted on Jun, 21 2006 @ 04:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by justin_barton3
whats happening to the other 14? why arent they being upgraded? are they being scrapped, or are they being upgraded at a later date due to financial difficulties?
justin


I would have to guess that the 14 not being upgraded may have high time airframes or structural limitations that make an upgrade not cost effective.



posted on Jun, 21 2006 @ 04:56 PM
link   
The other 14 had various reasons. Some had too much corrosion that would have cost too much to fix then upgrade, a couple were high time airframes, etc.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join