Talk:Lockheed C-5 Galaxy

Specifications

A couple days ago, I updated the range and speed using manufacturer's data.[1] I expect this to be newer and more accurate than the NASA Quest for performance (1985) data.[2] If anyone has newer and more accurate data from a verifiable source, please post it. -Fnlayson 01:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, not sure how to go about this, but I don't think the Mach speed conversions are correct. Should be Mach 0.79 equals 601mph, 967kmh, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.180.142.152 (talk) 21:36, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

The US Air Force fact sheet (who's link is at the bottom of the article states that the C-5 has a range of 6,320 nautical miles without air refueling. So why is it that the current range is listed as 1/3 of the actual range? Someone screwed up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.246.99.59 (talk) 06:36, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Incidents and accidents 2

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.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.

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)

Hey just a thought on this section...shouldn't "Aircraft 68-0218 (C-5A) was involved in one of the best known C-5 accident to date." be changed to one of the worst known accidents? Seems kinda morbid to look positively at the deaths of people like that, but hey what do i know eh? --68.186.37.46 (talk) 17:24, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

"Best known" only means most widely known. What you describe applies more to famous/infamous. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:10, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The crash at Ramstein was determined to not be a faulty deployment of the thrust reverser. This needs updating.Phlatulator (talk) 18:39, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Just need a reliable reference that covers that to update. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:18, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

• someone states that the Shemya accident aircraft was returned to service with the Texas Air National Guard; deleted as this is incorrect; they fly the C-130 and have never operated the C-5. Did they perhaps mean the Reserve unit at Kelly AFB, Texas?76.114.136.174 (talk) 03:18, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Aircraft image date error?

Great page, but I think I found one small error. The second image on the page is a C-5 (probably a "B model") with the caption "C-5 Galaxy in 1970". I don't think this is correct. The C-5 fleet was painted in the glossy white color scheme until about 1985. I believe that photo is circa 1986-88. In about 1989 they started using the all grey color scheme. - John B. (Crew Chief, C-5B #85-0006, 1985-90). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 214.3.17.37 (talk) 21:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

You may be right although it is not a B model it is the fourth C-5A 66-8306. The USAF caption says 1970 but images on the net show it in white scheme in 1981 and another in european one in 1983, it later went all grey. Might be easier to remove the date as we can not prove an exact date. MilborneOne (talk) 22:05, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Soldier of Fortune article about this aircraft

This site: [SoF] has a Soldier of Fortune article about this aircraft.Agre22 (talk) 15:14, 11 December 2009 (UTC)agre22

And that's a close copy of a Dover AFB article (not copy righted). Most intermediate details of the C-5M operational testing are probably not important enough to mention. Completing operational testing will certainly be covered. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:24, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Tail cargo space

I don't know if this is the right place to report this, but the following statement from the Design section struck me as surprising, and when I reviewed the citation for it, I didn't see any supporting information. I would think this should be removed or a better source should be provided (such as the actual volumes).

The volume of unusable space in a C-5's tail assembly (aft of the ramp) is larger than the available cargo space of a C-130 Hercules.[9]

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.107.0.77 (talk) 06:20, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

It does does dubious, and it's not in the cited source (the actual page cited - I haven't chacked all of the site's C-5 pages.) I've removed it for now. - BilCat (talk) 06:46, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

The same claim is made for the C-17's loading ramp. I may have seen that in a book as well. It seems like a trivia thing though, so no real need to have it included in the article, imo. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:45, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Recent disputed edits

Locheed built the production C-130s, and the C-141, in Marietta. It's not a far leep for then to build the C-5 there too. I question the additions for the Irving source, and ask both that the content be verified, and that the source's reliability be confirmed. WHat's posted there sounds too much like the typical political sniping that is often more based on the disgrunteld opinions of loser than on facts. - BilCat (talk) 20:59, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

And please don't remove the added tags until the dispute is settled here. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 21:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the clarify me=unclear, how could Lockheed be 3rd when only 2 where left after downselect? as the previous paragraph clearly says three companies were downselected (not one of the tags added by BilCat!). I have not touched the other tags as they clearly need to be sorted. Do we have a direct quote from Erving? Wide Body: The Triumph of the 747 doesnt sound like a neutral source! MilborneOne (talk) 21:44, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I fixed/updated that clarify tag. The sentence about Lockheed being third iswas misleading since it only tellstold part of the story. Lockheed had the lowest cost bid and that was main reason their bid was selected. I added the lowest bid part. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:03, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Callsign

From the article: ...with the aircraft's first flight taking to the air under the call-sign "eight-three-oh-three heavy (8303H)". This is not an FAA approved callsign, and is likely a simplification and misunderstanding of the actual callsign. It is more likely that the callsign was prefixed "Lockheed" followed by the aircraft tail number (eight three zero three?) or an internally assigned flight number . Furthermore, "Heavy" is not part of the aircraft's callsign, but simply a suffix that is spoken in reference to Heavy class (Gross Takeoff Weight > 255,000 lbs) aircraft by the pilot and ATC

72.177.176.101 (talk) 17:03, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Reason for elevated cockpit

The most common reason for an elevated cockpit on a cargo plane is to allow the front cargo door to open without disturbing fthe flight controls.

This article states: In particular, all three placed the cockpit well above the cargo area so that in a crash the cargo would not crush the crew as it moved forward.

Can this be substantiated? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.173.50.18 (talk) 21:23, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

The crash thing might be a consideration, but the front loading is the main thing as you say. My sources only mention the front loading aspect, so I reworded the quoted sentence in the article. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:40, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Concur. Incidently, I think Boeing always intended for the 747 to be able to use front-loadng as a freighter, which is why its cockpit is above the main deck too. It's interesting that Airbus didn't do this with the A380, meaning all cargo versions have to be side loading as currently designed. - BilCat (talk) 13:46, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure how much the nose door helps with normal cargo when there's not a loading ramp. Nevertheless, it'd been good to have the flight deck on the 2nd level so the option for a nose door is there if needed. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:15, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Henry Durham

http://www.truth-out.org/weapons-will-never-die-we-need-stop-expensive-reincarnations-part-ii/1305296162 Henry Durham, a Lockheed production manager for the C-5A production line in Marietta, Georgia, exposed massive quality control problems, while Air Force officials looked the other way, because he feared the plane was in such bad shape that it threatened the lives of the pilots and troops that flew in it.

Worth a mention? Hcobb (talk) 01:14, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

File:US Navy 050809-O-0000C-001 U.S. Marines assigned to Marine Aircraft Group Sixteen (MAG-16), off-load a Navy MH-53 Sea Dragon helicopter from an Air Force C-5 Galaxy transport on board Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:US Navy 050809-O-0000C-001 U.S. Marines assigned to Marine Aircraft Group Sixteen (MAG-16), off-load a Navy MH-53 Sea Dragon helicopter from an Air Force C-5 Galaxy transport on board Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests September 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:25, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

File:C-5A 167th AW at Martinsburg 2006.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:C-5A 167th AW at Martinsburg 2006.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 9 September 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:46, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Williams Field, Antarctica

Under the heading 'Operational History' there is the following statement: 'Williams Field near McMurdo Station is capable of handling C-5 aircraft, the first of which landed there in 1989.'

This is incorrect. Williams field is a compacted snow runway and is not capable of supporting wheeled aircraft. I don't believe any C5 aircraft has ever landed at Williams Field.

Also the first C5 to land in Antarctic landed on the 4th October 1989 at the ice runway. I know this because I arrived the previous day on a C-141 and returned to the ice runway on the 4th to witness the historic landing of the C5.

Regards,

Tony Oskam Base Engineer Scott Base 89/90 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.190.126.34 (talk) 12:51, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

The Williams Field indicates that there is an ice runway that is part of the Williams Field. But that is not clear by USAP's description, which says there's an "Annual Sea Ice Runway" somewhat near McMurdo Station and a "Pegasus White Ice Runway" further away. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:08, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Richard Marcinko HALO jump claim

Marcinko claimed in one of his books (Violence of Action, I think) that he once performed a HALO jump off the forward cargo ramp of a C-5 during his Team Six days. It sounded kind of dubious to me, but I still wonder if it's just part of his fictional book universe or if there might be some truth to it. Logic would dictate that the wind blowing into the aircraft would knock a man off his feet and blow him to the tail end of the craft, and I wonder if control of a C-5 in forward flight could even be maintained with the nose open, unless there's a smaller hatch on the nose I'm not aware of. Spartan198 (talk) 10:45, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

That book must be a fictional work then - because it didn't happen while in flight. There are interlocks to ensure that the front ramp does not lower nor does the nose raise while she is in-flight. Even if it did - the associated airflow would rip the plane to shreds at speed. The only way this is true is if they rolled the plane up to the edge of a cliff, parked it, opened it up and he jumped out. To my knowledge - the only base in the world this would be possible at is Anderson Air Force Base in Guam. 2ChannelGod (talk) 18:03, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

The events of the book are fiction, yes. I was just curious about that specific claim. Spartan198 (talk) 21:06, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

inaccurate statement on crash aircraft

The section on incidents and accidents states that the aircraft involved in the crash landing at Shemya in 1983 was returned to service and transferred to the Texas Air National Guard; this is incorrect as the only TANG airlift unit is the 136th Airlift Wing at Dallas which flies the C-130, they have never operated the C-5 - per the unit histories in Wikipedia articles for 136 AW, 147 FW and 149 FW. Did someone perhaps mean that the aircraft went to the Air Force Reserve unit at Kelly AFB, Texas?Bob80q (talk) 00:55, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Per WP:CIRCULAR WP cannot be used as a cite source for other WP articles. The existing information is cited externally - so unless something to the contrary is ref'd that's all there is really to go on. ((((( ((( (In Stereo) ))) ))))) (talk) 16:59, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

The WP articles cited include unit histories taken from official Air Force records, this should be considered acceptable source of reference.Bob80q (talk) 18:26, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

It's not per Wikipedia policy. Another wiki page is not considered a reliable source because it can be readily changed by users rightly and wrongly. The sources in those wiki articles can be copied over though. That's one way to get cites for the added text. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:35, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Correction of numbers on babylift crash

I reverted the changes someone made to my edits on the numbers of those aboard the babylift aircraft. The original figure of 313 is correct, somebody needs to learn how to add.23.24.109.165 (talk) 15:12, 5 February 2013 (UTC)