drn@pinet.aip.org (Donald Newcomb) (03/27/91)
From: drn@pinet.aip.org (Donald Newcomb) >From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) >The orthodox excuse is that the C-5 is incapable of flying heavy loads >direct to the front lines, while the C-17 can do this. Surprise surprise, >if you look at the original C-5 specs, it was supposed to be able to fly >heavy loads to the front lines! There were problems with debris damaging >engines when operating on soft surfaces, and the USAF was reluctant to >clear the C-5 for such operations in the end; nothing has been said about >why the C-17 won't have the same problems. A few years ago one of our "old timers" was getting ready to retire and throwing a lot of junk. I should have saved it! In the trash bin was an instructional booklet on the P.P.B.S. (Planning, Programming Budget System) written back when McNamara was SECDEF. It touted the yet-to-fly C-5 as an example of the success of P.P.B.S. I have it on the *very* best authority that, when the C-5 flies, it will be the perfect one-size-fits-all cargo plane. It will make obsolete all current U.S. military cargo planes down to and including the C-130. It will operate from short, unimproved runways; require almost no maintenance and will be cheap to boot. And to think, we owe it all to the P.P.B.S. ;-). That book should be required reading for every prospective Pentagon Program Manager on why never to count their chickens before they hatch. Donald Newcomb drn@pinet.aip.org drn@aip.bitnet
john@newave.mn.org (John A. Weeks III) (03/31/91)
From: john@newave.mn.org (John A. Weeks III) [14 lines of unnecessary quoted text deleted. --CDR] Air & Space Smithsonian had an article of the C-5 a year to two back. It mentioned that the C-5 could land on unimproved runways, but that the plane was so deleciate and expensive that no one was willing to risk one of the C-5s to do so, especially when the C-130 was available. The article went on to describe a C-5 mission to airlift a national gaurd unit to a training site. The C-5 was unable to take off for 24 hours because of several minor mechanical problems. The crew cheif said that the C-5 has so many specialized but never used systems and back-up systems that it is almost impossible to get everything working for a mission, and the plane cannot be flown unless everything checks out. At an airshow, I taked with a C-5 crew for about an hour. They mentioned that the C-5 was great when it worked, but they had a lot of down time. They indicated that the C-5 would be a much better plane if it was stripped down into a cargo plane and forgo the front line supply mission. -- John A. Weeks III (612) 942-6969 john@newave.mn.org NeWave Communications ...uunet!tcnet!wd0gol!newave!john