Huge Cargo Plane

[53k]

Years ago, there about ten C5s stationed at Stewart (about 20 air miles away). It was impressive seeing them coming down for a landing. They looked like they were hanging in the air. They have all been gone from there for some time now. I think that there are C17s there now. For special events at our local county airport, they bring one over. I have walked all around inside of one (a big plane).

Sort of the same story in my area. The West Virginia 167th Air National Guard, Martinsburg, WV had flown new or near new C-130s for a number of years. Somehow the powers that be decided to transition the unit to C-5s. It took several years and megabucks to build the infrastructure necessary to handle C-5s. That included reinforcing and raising the ramp area, modifying the runway, tearing down the old hangars, building three huge hangers where the C-5s being services could be inside and much more. Eleven C-5s were assigned. Once they were trained and all they began flying missions to Rota, Spain, Sigonella, Italy and further. Even though I was about 10 miles from the base, they came over our place low enough to see well and, as Stude Dave 57 said, hear their very distinctive sound.

In my untrained view, the C-5s weren't that reliable. I was teaching night classes at the Air Guard base and a number of my students were C-5 air crew members. It seemed like every week I would get calls or emails from students telling me they couldn't make the class because they were broken down in Rota or Sigonella or some other field and they were waiting for parts. C-5 parts were very hard to come by and in many cases the item had to be custom manufactured for the plane that was down. One of my students who was in maintenance told about having to have a floor panel manufactured because there weren't any in the supply system. The C-5s must have been thirsty. According to one of the crew members, from the time they started the engines on the ramp until they were at the runway ready to take off, they had burned 3,000 pounds of fuel. After the huge investment in the base, they took away the C-5s and transitioned to a fleet of nine C-17s. After a year or so of training they began flying missions and have done so for some time now. We downsized and ended up in a house about three miles from the base so we see the C-17s flying over our house now. They are fairly loud, but certainly not as distinctive as the C-5s and their high pitched scream (which never bothered me).

[Stude Shoo-wop!]

If you want to see a REALLY HUGE plane, Google Antonov AN-225- only one built, six engines, Wingspan: 290′ 0″, Weight: 628,300 lbs, Top speed: 528 mph, Range: 9,569.1 mi. Maximum gross takeoff weight is somewhere around 1,500,000 pounds. It has flown in to US airports to pick up or deliver oversized cargo.

So long as we're on the subject of gigantic planes, I should probably talk about the WW2 era Messerschmitt Me. 323, an absolutely massive six engined transport craft of which 213 were made. It had a length of 92.4 ft. and a wingspan of exactly 181 ft. and a potential carrying capacity of 10-12 tons of equipment. It served in all theaters of the war where Nazi Germany needed it to and, unfortunately, no complete examples remain.

[Bob Bryant]

Here is another mammoth plane which we saw while it was in Long Beach. Howard Hughes flew it once at a low elevation. It was referred to as the "Spruce Goose" because of its construction.

https://www.forbes.com/2007/06/01/aviation-aerospace-planes-biz-cx_rm_0604bigplanes.html#4325aa501560

[48skyliner]

For those who do not know the history, there was a competition back in the 1960s to develop the largest cargo plane ever built. Lockheed and General Electric won the competition, most likely because Lockheed needed the business. Boeing and Pratt Whitney decided to make some good use the technology they had developed in this competition, and so built a commercial airplane some of you might be familiar with, called the 747.
After a few thousand hours, the C5s began to develop serious fatigue problems, primarily in the wing structure, requiring some very expensive rebuilding. Of course, Boeing has had some fatigue issues too, but usually coming after 80-100,000 hours, not after 5,000. When the Air Force had about 25-30 C5s, Boeing began testing the cargo version of the 747, with a tilt up nose. It could carry more weight than a C5, fly faster and further, get maintenance at most major airports and carry almost 90% of the cargo that was being carried in the C5. It was offered to the Air Force for about $20 million when they were paying about $65 million for the C5, but the generals like to have their toys designed especially for them. The structural and aerodynamic compromises to provide the rough field capability were considerable. In Vietnam they landed in Saigon - no general was going to be responsible for landing that thing out in the dirt where some guy in black pajamas could shoot holes in it. Some of you may know different, but I have never heard of a C5 landing in primitive conditions except for training purposes.

Some of you have had some experience and fond memories of the C5 - so do I. When my photographer friend and I heard a C5 was coming for the local airshow at Paine Field, I called down to McChord AFB and made an inquiry. Pretty soon I was actually talking with the pilot down in California, and we agreed that when he arrived, he would make a low pass, pull up and fly a big traffic pattern with his gear and flaps down, so I could keep up with him. The photos shown here were taken with hard mounted cameras, one on the right wing pointed back at my T6, the other with a forward facing camera under the left wing as shown. This was a little bit scary, and I approached with great care, because if I dropped down into the vortex behind the C5, that would be like flying into the heart of a tornado. A couple of days later, Jim showed up at the airshow with a stack of 8 by 10 photos, some for each crew member. The pilot told us "nobody has photos of a C5 like these".

C-5Wingtip Cam https://imgur.com/16Ev68q


ForwardLooking Cam https://imgur.com/EcJFxj1


C-5Rear view https://imgur.com/9gsFkQk

[jclary]

48skyliner...thanks for the pictures. Also, to Bob Bryant, for starting this conversation. While not having much to do with our Studebaker hobby, this discussion reveals much about us as a group. It reveals that many of us have a good life and keep our heads up enough to notice what's "above."
I've often mentioned what I call the "Studebaker" personality which causes us to exercise our curiosity in ways others often overlook. Another great benefit to this forum is the broad base of our collective membership. Where else can a group of folks of such diverse experience, educational, economic, cultural, and professional levels, come together, discuss, share, and learn together, as on this forum?

It is easy to assume that an enlisted Air Force veteran (like me), is knowledgeable about airplanes. But, I was in a rather obscure Air Force ground combat outfit, in a supporting role, often away from air bases. I suppose I could have been classified as a "flightless bird." In Vietnam, I was stationed at Ton Son Nuit, once referred to as the worlds busiest airport (during the war). I was there in '67-68. When the word GLOBEMASTER is used, I think of this lumbering, ungainly, somewhat cartoonish looking aircraft.
One night, during the Tet Offensive, a group of us were watching the flight line as one of these took a pounding from enemy fire off the end of the runway. Virtually all other aircraft could attain safe altitude before reaching the secure perimeter of the base. Not this one. We had a shortwave radio tuned to the control tower. The controller asked the pilot if he needed to declare an emergency and clear the line. In a deep calm voice, the pilot radioed back..."Naw...I think we'll make it to Guam."

[David56j]

Haveflown all over half the world in C-17s. And some on C-5s. As retired Military,I have the opportunity to fly Space available on military aircraft. The C-5shave an actual passenger section with airliner type seats. The C-17 has"jump seats" along the sides that fold down. The C-17 is actually ourfavorite aircraft. Even over most commercial jets, because of the amount ofspace. 48skyliner is right, the C-5a was not a very reliable aircraft. Seemedto be always been delayed for maintenance. The C-5m is a much more reliable ride. I thinkthe presidential support flights are generally C-17s

[48skyliner]

I was always fascinated by the interest people had in building very large airplanes. The Army had Douglas build the B-19, a one-off research plane to investigate the problems of very large bombers. It was underpowered. They also had Boeing build the B-15, smaller but still underpowered. Boeing used the technology they had developed and built the model 314 Clipper flying boat using the B-15 wings, engines and I think the tail surfaces, with upgraded engines. After the war, the British built the Bristol Brabazon, a very large airliner. It was underpowered and did not perform as expected. There was also the Saunders Roe Princess flying boat, a beautiful machine, the largest all metal flying boat ever built, with turboprop engines. It flew, but was underpowered and did not perform as expected. Then there was the Hughes Hercules flying boat, all wood construction and using 8 of the most powerful piston airplane engines ever built (the 4 row Pratt Whitney R-4360, used on the C-124 shown above above, The B-50, C-97 Stratocruiser, the B-36 (6 engines), some C-119s and a few others).

After the war, Hughes was highly criticised by many in the congress and others for spending millions of U.S. taxpayer dollars to build a plane that never flew. Hughes could do nothing about the fact the airplane never was used to transport troops and materials across the ocean during the war, but he apparently thought he could at least disprove the claims that it never flew. One day he took some reporters and photographers out into Long Beach harbor for some "fast taxi tests" preparatory to flying the airplane at a later date - he did not have CAA approval to fly it at this point. As everyone knows he was taxiing the plane at fairly high speed when he advanced the throttles to full, accelerated and lifted off, flying for a short distance, but never lifting even as high as the height of the airplane. Afterwards there was much publicity, newsreels etc showing that the "Spruce Goose" really does fly. But did it really prove that the airplane would fly?

The flow field around an airplane in flight involves pressures and airflows above, below, ahead, behind and on either side of the airplane which are more complex than you might expect. One phenomenon which is well known to airplane designers and to some pilots is "ground effect". The lift produced by the wing is significantly greater when very close to the ground, but this effect dissipates quickly when the wing is about 1/2 wingspan from the ground. So with a wingspan of just over 300 feet, the Spruce Goose would be "in ground effect" until the wing is about 150 feet from the surface. The question, then is would the Spruce Goose have climbed to 500 or 1,000 feet if Hughes had attempted to fly higher? I do not know the answer, and cannot recall anyone asking this question. With the light fuel load and no cargo, it might well have flown , but I believe it was underpowered just like every really huge propellor driven airplane ever built, and would never have been able to fulfill its design mission, carrying hundreds of troops and enough fuel to cross the ocean.

The real question is why did so many airplane designers from so many companies over so many years always underestimate the power required for these really large airplanes? This problem was not solved until GE and Pratt developed the high-bypass turbofan engines of 40,000 pounds thrust used on the C5 and 747. 50 years later there are engines available for the high gross weight 777 that are on the order of 100,000 pounds thrust.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWTk0Uflyk8

[48skyliner]

Speaking of ground effect: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ko6aCLVDUYM

The Russians have built some similar craft for years, but I don't know if they were production items or just research.