to the video poster the c5 was chosen because it was cheaper, boeing had the superior design per the air forces words. but the c5 at the time was cheaper.
Actually the landing gear is fairly reliable considering its complex design. The biggest problems with them are persistent, annoying small hydraulic leaks from the hundreds of lines that criss-cross the gear.
I used to be an F15 crew chief (2A353A). The rumor was that C-5 landing gear breaks just about every time one lands. After seeing this video, I'm starting to understand why that is.
@remodrums33 bit of a dumb comment, 1, because if they wanted to i'm sure they would have done. And 2, it clearly makes no difference, because it has a higher payload. I don't see your point...
The payload has nothing to do with it. The newer editions 747's can hold more payload and have a higher max takeoff weight than the C-5 or the AN-124. But the 747 wasn't practical to load because it was too high off the ground. That is why the C-5 was chosen. And if the AN-124 is better, why are there only around 40 aircraft in existence vs. the C-5's 110? Not to mention that the AN-124 has an advantage by being available for purchase in the commercial sector as the C-5 is not.
@remodrums33 there are 58 An-124 around, most of which are civilian, the C-5 is entirely sold to the US military in greater numbers because they have a huge budget to send on them :L
The C-5 was designed by lockheed which with most features intended for military use. The 747 is primarily used by civilian transport (fedex, ups, evergreen...etc). Actually most civilian 747 cargo planes are passenger jets convert for cargo use because of cost. Used car vs. new car. Civilian companys look are simplicity and price and the c-5 is neither. The gear system alone was and is the most complex landing gear system in the world.
@remodrums33 i wonder if the C5 is so much better, why are you paying the russians to do this: img18.imageshack.us/img18/8018/chooseweapon06091192013.jpg
@remodrums33 The An 124s gear It was built that way out of simplicity, it’s pretty obvious. It costs millions of dollars alone to get type approvals based on unproven new designs alone, look at the testing that the F-104s main gear went through because it was such a different design.
Orly?. Then I guess the rotation of the Il-76 landing gear is just a product of my imagination. I find it amusing to read comments of people who pretend to be "knowledgeable".
By the way, the production of the An-124 has been stopped for a long while now, so you might as well educated yourself before you pretend to state any further "facts".
@UNSClead1 Not so much size, but how many. I think we used 8 Jacks (4 60 Ton and 4 30 Ton) to Jack it for a Gear Swing. I could be wrong, I only ever just helped with Jacks.
Is that sound part of the sequence, or background noise, or just some weird digital crap? Cool clip though...I had no clue that the C-5 had gear that rotated like that, as a unit. That's almost as weird as the DC-10/KC-10 and it's third wheel-set in between the main gears! That was something I could never quite understand.
Yeah it was a crazy system. It was disconnected a long time ago but some of the planes still have the old nose gear position indicator which showed the direction of the aircraft vs the direction of the gear. Pretty neat.
The really impressive part was the crosswind computer that would turn the wheels for landing while the A/C nose pointed into the wind! I don't recall the degree limits, but we avionics types had to test that system with the plane up on jacks just like this.
Could you imagion if those gears got stuck in the halfway position upon landing...I wouldn't want to have been the last guy that worked on it !!!!!!!!!!!!!
@Randomness84726 You should read some specifications on C-5's. To be honest, I'm surprised that they already have enough from the payloads they carry.
The reason for so many tires is to create a light footrprint and to divide the weight evenly. The C-5 is designed for operation on unimproved surfaces, so it is critical not to have a heavy footprint that would sink into soft surfaces. This aircraft actually has a lighter footprint than a C-130 or a C-17.
I was driving AGE at Travis, and the other driver fell asleep at the wheel and drove into the left rear mains of a plane. At the time, control was calling me, AGE 5, and asking me what my status was. It was later that I found out what happened because I was working the C-141 ramp and drove by the C-5 that Eric ran into. That was back in 86 I believe.
Funny thing, Eric had to give the rest of us a safety breifing on how not to fall asleep at the wheel. Go figure.
My son worked for Boeing some years back as a flight test engineer. Thet used to fly down to the old military air base at Roswell,. NM and, among other things
made FULL wheel brake applications at a speed just past V-1. Empty sometimes, loaded othersonly thing he wasn't allowed to fly with was when they did high altituide aerobatics. Didja ever see a 747 do a slow roll or loop?
Yeah those C-130's are awesome huh? All E models and some H models being retired due to cracked wing boxes..oh by the way whats the max payload for the 130?
So what...the C-5 is a lot bigger, and it breaks a hell of a lot more. E model 130's need to go away anyway, we can do fine with Super E's, H's and J's. The 130 will be around a lot longer than the 5.
C-130's have their purpose and they perform it well. However I dont see this plane moving the army's 74 ton scissor bridge or the M1. I Your comparing a tug boat to an oil tanker. There completely different.
It is very common and perfectly legal to use APU's while on jacks. However, because the touchdown switches are no longer engaged the light in the fire t-handle would come on but the horn would not sound in the event of a fire, therefore when running APU's on jacks, you had to have a fire extinguisher standing by in case
Yeah but you can run the APU's with the door open, and while they don't "need" both APU's running it causes the EGT to run high with a hydraulic and bleed air load and they would more than likely not put a load on a single APU like that, also could have had a hydraulic mule
They only need sys 4 for swinging it, and the single APU is plenty capable of outputting the bleed air load. You know that the APU only powers the hyd sys via proxy too. Apu-bleed air-atm-hyd pump :) High Speed, low torque on a swing! Sorry, I love talking shop. haha
Actually that is the number 4 gear which uses the #1 hydraulic system to operate in normal mode and only uses the #4 hyd system when in emergency mode.
rats dat? yoo rant ron ton soop? im on ma ray!
Plamen2007 6 months ago
to the video poster the c5 was chosen because it was cheaper, boeing had the superior design per the air forces words. but the c5 at the time was cheaper.
outdoorsman767 7 months ago
Alright who's hand is that can i hear masturbating over the landing gear?
britishairwayspilot1 8 months ago
why making it rotational? why not keep it simpler and less likely to complicate?
marechalrommel 9 months ago
Actually the landing gear is fairly reliable considering its complex design. The biggest problems with them are persistent, annoying small hydraulic leaks from the hundreds of lines that criss-cross the gear.
remodrums33 10 months ago
I used to be an F15 crew chief (2A353A). The rumor was that C-5 landing gear breaks just about every time one lands. After seeing this video, I'm starting to understand why that is.
tsilb 10 months ago
HAHA very funny. The AN 124 has inline landing gear because Russian engineers couldn't figure out how to build rotating, kneeling gear pods!
remodrums33 1 year ago
@remodrums33 bit of a dumb comment, 1, because if they wanted to i'm sure they would have done. And 2, it clearly makes no difference, because it has a higher payload. I don't see your point...
j4cko56 1 year ago
The payload has nothing to do with it. The newer editions 747's can hold more payload and have a higher max takeoff weight than the C-5 or the AN-124. But the 747 wasn't practical to load because it was too high off the ground. That is why the C-5 was chosen. And if the AN-124 is better, why are there only around 40 aircraft in existence vs. the C-5's 110? Not to mention that the AN-124 has an advantage by being available for purchase in the commercial sector as the C-5 is not.
remodrums33 1 year ago
@remodrums33 there are 58 An-124 around, most of which are civilian, the C-5 is entirely sold to the US military in greater numbers because they have a huge budget to send on them :L
j4cko56 8 months ago
The C-5 was designed by lockheed which with most features intended for military use. The 747 is primarily used by civilian transport (fedex, ups, evergreen...etc). Actually most civilian 747 cargo planes are passenger jets convert for cargo use because of cost. Used car vs. new car. Civilian companys look are simplicity and price and the c-5 is neither. The gear system alone was and is the most complex landing gear system in the world.
jefftrossbach 7 months ago
By the way....rotational landing gear was experimented with by Antonov, but at the time they lacked the engineering to accomplish it.
remodrums33 1 year ago
@remodrums33 You sir still live in cold war!
Loudyest 10 months ago
@remodrums33 i wonder if the C5 is so much better, why are you paying the russians to do this: img18.imageshack.us/img18/8018/chooseweapon06091192013.jpg
85LARGE 8 months ago
@85LARGE img18.imageshack.us/img18/8018/chooseweapon06091192013.jpg
85LARGE 8 months ago
@j4cko56 I agree but for a different reason. They stole the plans for the B-29,if they wanted the design they would have just stolen it. LOL
shadowr434 8 months ago
@remodrums33 The An 124s gear It was built that way out of simplicity, it’s pretty obvious. It costs millions of dollars alone to get type approvals based on unproven new designs alone, look at the testing that the F-104s main gear went through because it was such a different design.
Metromechanic 9 months ago
Orly?. Then I guess the rotation of the Il-76 landing gear is just a product of my imagination. I find it amusing to read comments of people who pretend to be "knowledgeable".
By the way, the production of the An-124 has been stopped for a long while now, so you might as well educated yourself before you pretend to state any further "facts".
acheroncyc 6 months ago
An-124 rule!!!
FMorris308 1 year ago
@FMorris308 Yes C-5 SUCK :DD
TheGogr 1 year ago
@UNSClead1 Not so much size, but how many. I think we used 8 Jacks (4 60 Ton and 4 30 Ton) to Jack it for a Gear Swing. I could be wrong, I only ever just helped with Jacks.
WillRyan514 1 year ago
Those have to be some big ass jacks for that thing.
UNSClead1 1 year ago
Is that sound part of the sequence, or background noise, or just some weird digital crap? Cool clip though...I had no clue that the C-5 had gear that rotated like that, as a unit. That's almost as weird as the DC-10/KC-10 and it's third wheel-set in between the main gears! That was something I could never quite understand.
justforever96 1 year ago
Yeah it was a crazy system. It was disconnected a long time ago but some of the planes still have the old nose gear position indicator which showed the direction of the aircraft vs the direction of the gear. Pretty neat.
remodrums33 1 year ago
The really impressive part was the crosswind computer that would turn the wheels for landing while the A/C nose pointed into the wind! I don't recall the degree limits, but we avionics types had to test that system with the plane up on jacks just like this.
3buffalo13 1 year ago
@3buffalo13
15 deg
aeromech99 1 year ago
I saw one of these birds at the Québec Airshow, last Saturday, and I was wondering how the gear worked. Very interesting.
QAFtuvok101 1 year ago
thats a lot of rubber
dmaddles 1 year ago
what was that sound? lol it made me lol
InspectorExacto 1 year ago
Reminds me of the days I've spend working on B-52 G landing gear. It feels weird to be standing under an aircraft suspended by floor jacks.
Tuddley3 1 year ago
i love the C-5 Galaxy. hell of a beast. next to the B-52 BUFF
KennebecCntySD 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
/watch?v=VH-KDGRwwck - Russian documentary about NATO transport aviation. Including C-5 Galaxy, C-141 Starlifter, C-17 Globemaster III
BitnikGr 1 year ago
its cool how it come down sideways, then turns to line up with the plane, i got this plane on fsx, its pretty cool
xRAMxDOD 1 year ago
It's happened! And it's not too pretty!
remodrums33 1 year ago
Could you imagion if those gears got stuck in the halfway position upon landing...I wouldn't want to have been the last guy that worked on it !!!!!!!!!!!!!
eng081194 1 year ago
my god how big must those jacks have to be xD :L
ChrisMiller1994 1 year ago
So much technology out there and cell phone videos still look and sound like shit.
Ignantredneck 2 years ago 16
Haha that was taken on an old flip phone in 2006
ducttapewwjd 2 years ago
@Ignantredneck Don't you think cell phone videos are the least of our worries......
MrCrazyfucker123 1 year ago
I'm gonna put these wheels on my truck lol. The C-5 is a pretty awesome plane despite it's size.
FA22RaiseHell 2 years ago
yea def agreed most people have no idea what it takes to make the C-5 fly
MadDawgAce03 2 years ago
Actually not much if properly maintained.
pklute63 2 years ago
you sure about that lol ??
MadDawgAce03 2 years ago
22 years on C-5's....I've seen it all and my landings equal my takeoffs so that part I haven't seen. lol
pklute63 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
That is cool but C-5's are just a big waste of wheeles
Randomness84726 2 years ago
Another uninformed person...
remodrums33 2 years ago
agreed lol
pindrop 2 years ago
@Randomness84726 You should read some specifications on C-5's. To be honest, I'm surprised that they already have enough from the payloads they carry.
Tuddley3 1 year ago
@Tuddley3 You are right there
Randomness84726 1 year ago
@Randomness84726 i agree, that is not nesscesary
xRAMxDOD 1 year ago
@Randomness84726 It uses so many wheels 'cause it's so damn heavy. Especially when loaded to carrying capacity.
qazxsw21000 1 year ago
The reason for so many tires is to create a light footrprint and to divide the weight evenly. The C-5 is designed for operation on unimproved surfaces, so it is critical not to have a heavy footprint that would sink into soft surfaces. This aircraft actually has a lighter footprint than a C-130 or a C-17.
remodrums33 1 year ago 2
that looks awsome!!!!
f18esuperhornet13 2 years ago
Thats a big tire.
175Air 2 years ago
what size tire is that?
cory8791 2 years ago
Approximately 4 feet in diameter.
remodrums33 2 years ago
When I heard that video start I thought it was gonna bust out with some reggae.
flybynightvideo 2 years ago
Oh alright.
vetdrvr84 2 years ago
interesting gear
HasanJamilable 2 years ago
I took this video at Westover AFB in Chicopee, MA.
remodrums33 2 years ago
I used to be stationed in Dover, I think thats where this is. That old guy in the video (from AR) is a dick!
vetdrvr84 2 years ago
I have no idea why this is so coll but it is!!
wallsy2010 2 years ago 7
@wallsy2010 Yeah, way coll! (?)
NVanWendy 1 year ago
I was driving AGE at Travis, and the other driver fell asleep at the wheel and drove into the left rear mains of a plane. At the time, control was calling me, AGE 5, and asking me what my status was. It was later that I found out what happened because I was working the C-141 ramp and drove by the C-5 that Eric ran into. That was back in 86 I believe.
Funny thing, Eric had to give the rest of us a safety breifing on how not to fall asleep at the wheel. Go figure.
witch532 2 years ago
kind of fast
daindapain1 2 years ago
those gotta be strong jacks to hold that thing up.
gnrfanatic141414 2 years ago
6ea 60 ton jacks to be exact
usafhydro 2 years ago
The NLG jacks are not 60 ton jacks
pklute63 2 years ago
its a good one
1586khan 2 years ago
Yea I remember that, changing those tires in the rain sucked.
bulrydrdan 2 years ago
wow that plane must have some very big jacks to hold up that big plane
isaiah213 3 years ago
Id be so scared to have that thing on jacks
MacMan4193 3 years ago
There are 6 jacks holding the aircraft up. They are postioned at mounting points that are designed for it. It's actually very stable when jacked.
remodrums33 3 years ago
lol
lemme rephrase
id be scared to be under it
runewizard77 3 years ago
My son worked for Boeing some years back as a flight test engineer. Thet used to fly down to the old military air base at Roswell,. NM and, among other things
made FULL wheel brake applications at a speed just past V-1. Empty sometimes, loaded othersonly thing he wasn't allowed to fly with was when they did high altituide aerobatics. Didja ever see a 747 do a slow roll or loop?
hootervilleham 3 years ago
Haha sorry....the noise you hear is the ATM(air turbine motor). It uses bleed air from the APU to drive a hydraulic pump which powers the gear.
remodrums33 3 years ago
These planes suck...C-130's out of Dyess are way more reliable...The C-5 is a F.R.E.D - Fucking Rediculous Economic Disaster
gokeman07 3 years ago
Yeah those C-130's are awesome huh? All E models and some H models being retired due to cracked wing boxes..oh by the way whats the max payload for the 130?
remodrums33 3 years ago
So what...the C-5 is a lot bigger, and it breaks a hell of a lot more. E model 130's need to go away anyway, we can do fine with Super E's, H's and J's. The 130 will be around a lot longer than the 5.
gokeman07 3 years ago
C-130's have their purpose and they perform it well. However I dont see this plane moving the army's 74 ton scissor bridge or the M1. I Your comparing a tug boat to an oil tanker. There completely different.
remodrums33 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
That sound is no way in hell ATMs or APUs...on any airframe using APUs on jacks is illeagal as hell
usafhydro 2 years ago
Deinitely was APU's and ATM's. I was standing there and there was no mule connected.
remodrums33 2 years ago
damn....i have a crappy audio feed off this thing....and I've been away from FRED for a long time....one more year and I'll be back
usafhydro 2 years ago
It is very common and perfectly legal to use APU's while on jacks. However, because the touchdown switches are no longer engaged the light in the fire t-handle would come on but the horn would not sound in the event of a fire, therefore when running APU's on jacks, you had to have a fire extinguisher standing by in case
pklute63 2 years ago
MAN! WTF? what is that sound???
put a warning saying that it this video is going to make me lose my hearing next time!!!
vicky271fxz 3 years ago
man thats awesome. My bro flies C-5's out of San Antonio but I have never gotten to get that close!
agwrangler 3 years ago
huge the elephants of the gear family
delcomues 3 years ago
you had to stand right by the goddamn APU too
shnaaarf 3 years ago
Look closer... the Rt APU door is open... They really shouldn't have needed the Rt APU for swinging #4.
vashtht 3 years ago
Yeah but you can run the APU's with the door open, and while they don't "need" both APU's running it causes the EGT to run high with a hydraulic and bleed air load and they would more than likely not put a load on a single APU like that, also could have had a hydraulic mule
nortnort 3 years ago
Sounds like you might work on Fred...
They only need sys 4 for swinging it, and the single APU is plenty capable of outputting the bleed air load. You know that the APU only powers the hyd sys via proxy too. Apu-bleed air-atm-hyd pump :) High Speed, low torque on a swing! Sorry, I love talking shop. haha
vashtht 3 years ago
Actually that is the number 4 gear which uses the #1 hydraulic system to operate in normal mode and only uses the #4 hyd system when in emergency mode.
pklute63 3 years ago
You're correct, I fat fingered it and didn't even notice until it had already posted the comment.
vashtht 3 years ago
Been there, done that!
pklute63 3 years ago