C5 Hard Landing
Top Comments
All Comments (16)
-
A "hard landing". Yes, I guess that explains the absence of a runway in the immediate vicinity of the aircraft...
...or the distinctly severed aircraft fuselage and wingtips.
At what point does a crash qualify as just that - a crash?
-
I've made a few hard landings before, I guess anything you walk away from is a good one, but damn! LOL
-
Hard landing? Are C5's expected to "land" 1 mile short of the runway....I would think any off-runway landing will be hard...
-
@d0rkiishchris It wasn't just the engines. They flew an absolutely horrible approach coming in way below glideslope, overshooting centerline, with full flaps. The amount of pilot error involved in this crash was absolutely attrocious and the C-5 was little more than an innocent bystander faithfully doing exactly what it was asked to do - crash well short of the runway.
-
it looks like it got beheaded
-
The TF-39 engine which currently powers the C-5A and B variants was and always has been a dismally performing engine. Currently the fleet of C-5's is beinbg re-engines with the GE CF-6 80C2. They were going to do the whole fleet but I believe plans have changed.
-
agreed
-
I'm still surpised. Even with the wrong engine selected I would have thought the plane could have made level flight with 2 engines at 100%. They must have been full of fuel and full of cargo, or the C-5 does actually need every lsat bit of its 4 engines, which kinda sucks. The engines, in proportion to the C-5 do actually look like small.
-
This might be called a crash?!?! BawHAHAHAHAHAHA.
lets see... cockpit separated from the rest of the fuselage... CHECK! port wing embedded in the dirt with #1 engine detached from the wing... CHECK! "Uh ok frank... i think we might just have a crash on our hands"
draper73 4 years ago 8
"Could've qualified as a crash" Looks like we have an expert for commentary on the news. HAHA wow...just...wow
migkiller001 2 years ago 3