C-5 Galaxy Landing Gear Extend

Here, the #4 gear pod (aft,right) extends for testing purposes while the aircraft is on jacks.

Category:

Autos & Vehicles

Tags:

• C-5
• Galaxy
• Lockheed
• landing
• gear
• bogie
• cargo
• plane
• airplane

[remodrums33]

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]

HAHA very funny. The AN 124 has inline landing gear because Russian engineers couldn't figure out how to build rotating, kneeling gear pods!

[j4cko56]

@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...

[remodrums33]

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]

By the way....rotational landing gear was experimented with by Antonov, but at the time they lacked the engineering to accomplish it.

[Ignantredneck]

So much technology out there and cell phone videos still look and sound like shit.

[wallsy2010]

I have no idea why this is so coll but it is!!

[acheroncyc]

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".

[Plamen2007]

rats dat? yoo rant ron ton soop? im on ma ray!

[jefftrossbach]

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.

[outdoorsman767]

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.

[britishairwayspilot1]

Alright who's hand is that can i hear masturbating over the landing gear?

[85LARGE]

@85LARGE img18.imageshack.us/img18/8018­/chooseweapon06091192013.jpg

[85LARGE]

@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

[j4cko56]

@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

[shadowr434]

@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

[marechalrommel]

why making it rotational? why not keep it simpler and less likely to complicate?