The LARGEST Aircraft in The Air Force Has A GIANT Problem
The LARGEST Aircraft in The Air Force Has A GIANT Problem. In this video, we talk about the impressive statistics of this colossal aircraft - weighing up to 840,000 pounds and towering taller than a six-story building. Its capabilities are equally astounding, with the ability to transport up to six helicopters, multiple submarines, and even a NASA satellite.
Come along on the journey of the birth of the C-5 Super Galaxy which traces back to the need for a transport aircraft capable of carrying an entire U.S. Army division halfway across the globe.However, creating an aircraft of this magnitude doesn’t come without it’s own challenges. Discover the problems faced during the making of this airplane and how they were overcome.
We also discuss the significant upgrades the Super Galaxy has undergone transforming technology. Its spacious cargo compartment can accommodate a wide range of military equipment, from armoured vehicles to helicopters, making it a vital asset for global military operations.
You’ll be taken inside the aircraft to discover its powerful engines, special landing gears, advanced unloading system and high wingspans that keep this aircraft in the air. This video is your ticket to the Largest Aircraft in the Airforce offering insights that leave you in awe.
Maintaining an aircraft of this magnitude requires a dedicated team of specialists skilled in various domains. Learn about the experts who ensure the Super Galaxy remains operational and mission-ready, from instrument maintenance to aerodynamic repairs.
So, hold tight to your seats as we explore the largest aircraft in the air force. Make sure to like, share and subscribe to our channel for more amazing content.
Join this 'Paper Pilot CLub' to get access to perks:
/ @beyondfacts
SUBSCRIBE: www.bit.ly/beyondFactsSUB
#plane
#airforce
#beyondfacts
Love our videos? Join our ‘Paper Pilot Club’ now! Get new videos first, special paper airplanes, and cool badges. Click ‘Join’ to be a member and have more fun with us! kzhead.info/tools/zgWZmqmKpmsr4oPWITusKA.htmljoin
Very Good.
Has A GIANT Problem - BULLSHIT, JUST LIKE ALL THE OTHER VIDEOS!
Title: "The LARGEST Aircraft in the air has a GIANT problem" over 14 minutes of video only to realize there is no problem. Misleading title just to generate yt revenues.
Click Bate.
Now Son, what will it take for you to drive this beauty off the lot, TODAY??
Well, the tires looks like it needs servicing and under usage of the airframe don’t count. I think the Air Force may want to come up with better usage than doing the deed in the cargo hull with female crew members, I must say there are really nice looking babes in the Air Force but they are not all crewmembers, some are private secretaries doing who knows what for the generals but they seems to get a lot of awards and get promoted faster. This reminds me of the gulf war when certain nurses was prostituting themselves in the storage tents for extra spending money.
Ah, thanks for this comment. I read it right at the begging of the video, so you just saved me 14 min.
I’m shocked! Shocked I tell you!
Title: "Has a GIANT Problem" Video: "14 minutes of how awesome it is"
I was left confused at the end too with their title. I do know that there's a few different things that have become problems. With the age of the aircraft and other reasons, parts are becoming harder to come by. With ever increasing costs to continue flying a C-5, it makes a C-17 a more cost effective choice. Basically, the C-5 is only kept around for their size.
@@bahn2452There are plenty of C-5 parts by virtue of the rest of the A/B fleet being stored at Davis Monthan. The C-5M will be around for about 20 more years. The C-17 fleet got battered in Afghan and Iraq. It is not a cost effective aircraft either. And any service life extension program comes at a cost. Be cheaper to build new ones with more efficient engines.
Greta would love this LOL
Bro 9:32 yes, that is totally the B737 and not the B747
Nothing can do what the C5 Galaxy does - will go down in history as one of the greatest airplanes ever built - Msgt WRMcGowan USAF (Ret) || C5 Flight Engineer for 20 years
McGowan when was you station at pope,I was there 1963 to 1965 crew chief on 801 c130
An225?
Kinda dead @@wolfrust0
@@wolfrust0 Mirra down to one in parts, stated in this video more than 50 C5s in operation. Even if there were two C5s for one AN225, which is more payload, that’s 25+ pairs. And Strattolaunch is way bigger. (Wingspan)
I worked on C5A and C-141 at Travis AFB, Ramstein AB, Torrejon AB and Altus AFB a long long time ago. Then 36 years at American Airlines. Now 63 I could fix that today. At Travis AFB in the AR Shop my first jobs included jacking the C5 outside on the ramp, replacing large components and rigging the entire system. I was still 18 years old. I didn't stop for 41 years (36 at AAL) until 3 years ago. All thanks to the USAF.
I was a C-5 loadmaster at Travis AFB
There is a decommissioned C-5 on display at the Military Airlift Museum at Dover AFB, Delaware. The C-5, along with a dozen or so other aircraft, is displayed outside. I was there on a really windy day, and kept hearing something that sounded like a wind chime while walking the tarmac. I finally realized it was the wind blowing through the giant turbofan blades of the C-5 and making them spin.
I remember being in elementary school during recess and having one fly over us going to Moffett field. It was so huge and it looked like it would fall out of the sky. It was awesome
I know what you mean. It's just about as memorable as your first "score," right? :-)
When the C-5 first came out, I was stationed at Norton AFB CA. One came in, knelt down and couldn’t get up. A second one came in to rescue the first one,and it broke down also. A third one came in to rescue the second one, and due to limited parking area, all three were parked on a taxiway. Eventually, all three were repaired and departed.
The C-5 was a giant and a great aircraft to work on. I also worked on the fabulous C-141A and B. I worked both airframes from 1981 to 1990, as an Aircraft Electrician Environmental Systems Specialist, and I loved both airframes. Both Airframes were used as SOLII aircraft in Special Operations.
In 1970 while stationed as a station aviator at NAS Cubi Pt in the Philippines, we were transiting from Bagio in the mountains back to Cubi and as normal overflew Clark AFB. Clark had a large parking area for the C-130s and another for the C-141s. We glanced down and noticed what I at first thought was a C-141 parked amongst all the much smaller C-130s, when I realized it was in fact the C-141 parking are with a much, much larger C-5 parked there. While we had of course heard about the program until you see one in person, you can't really appreciate how big they are. They have earned the nickname of the aluminum overcast.
Outside the noise (you need earplugs and I recommend headphones playing music on top of that just to help drown out the noise) the C5 was quite comfortable to fly in. The passenger compartment seating has some really decent legroom. Its a little awkward when taking off and landing because you're facing the back.
When they were building the C5A one of the major stumbling blocks that came up was the tires! They had problems finding tires that would hold up to the weight of the plane upon landing!
I saw the first flight from the end of the runway at Dobbins AFB. My grandfather built the landing gears. 28 wheels and tires. He was a hydraulic specialist and worked on the cargo dorrs also.
I saw this plane be rolled out on the ramp, via TV, as it was a big deal in Atlanta, where I used to live when a kid. It might have been one of the motivating things pushing me to join military, but followed family tradition and went into USN. I am now a PC Sim pilot, and its cousin, the C-17 is my all-time favorite PC plane to fly. The C-5 is just a big honking plane, and it's too big for me. My second favorite plane is the BA-747-800, and when the first model was released, Delta Air Lines bought some, and I flew from KATL to KLAX on one of the first. It was then a great plane and is still today, should have never stopped making it. I also can fly the BA 737, and the F-14. Great Video.
Your comment makes no sense. The C5 is "too big for you", but you like the 747-800 - at about TWICE to 2.5 times the mass full loaded, and EVEN BIGGER.
I was at Altus AFB Oklahoma on a temporary duty assignment while they were flight testing and training the very first C5A that Lockheed delivered to the USAF. We were at the flight line getting ready to return to Scott AFB Illinois while the C5 was in the air with a little problem - the nose wheels wouldn't come down. They were doing flybys of the tower for visual checks while they tried to correct the problem, and I have a picture of us watching it seemingly floating by with the rest of the landing gear in place but no nose wheels visible. Eventually a crew member was able to climb down into the guts of the plane and crank the wheels down by hand. It finally was able to land, with the runway covered with flame retardant foam and fire trucks and an ambulance standing by just in case.
I remember these things did have teething pains. Unwanted metal fatigue (cracks found in the wings) was one of them. In fact, I remember one that crashed on takeoff in the evacuation effort in the Vietnam war. Like the M16, the bugs were worked out- both products of the Vietnam era.
I lived in Atlanta during the late 60's. You absolutely could NOT ignore this new-to-us monster hanging in the sky. People freaked out .
So its a weapon of war and you are worried about the environment? That is stupid.
The idea was it could fly further w/increased payload resulting in fewer compression/decompression cycles on the physical airframe while getting better fuel economy. Short of crashing, the thing that results in aircraft being decommissioned and sent to the boneyard is stress/strain between panels/rivets of the pressurized compartments. Most everything else can be removed/replaced overtime.
Why are you so excited?? ... Is it yours??? 🤣
Antonov An-225 not available? - ( oh, thats right , the only one flying destroyed ) ;( :(
I'm hearing one will get rebuilt but who knows if it will at this point
@@talknstang400 the rebuild will cost 300 million dollars to build
ANTONOV is currently about 65% through completion on the second AN-225 airframe this one was not destroyed by the Russians, it was just never completed. It is expected to be flying in 2025.
@@jaycooper2812 🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪 Yeah RIGHT!!!
@@jaycooper2812 where is it being built?
How come nobody ever mentions that this thing can also carry a submarine. This monster plane has on multiple occasions transported the DSRV to various locations in the world.
It also launched a I.C.B.M.
The in-flight refueling reminded me of some cool fotos my A.F. brother gave me. He piloted the C-5 at Dover, DE and related some facts and events that haven't been mentioned before. The engineers overlooked the gyroscopic action of the wheels when the bogey turns to go up. Brakes have to be applied to facilitate this. He did a front skid landing when the front wheels failed to open out approaching Ramstein in Germany. He was AC Commander returning from Europe when a retired Naval Admiral on board took ill and later died. That man was John McCain, father of Sen. John McCain.
NOT " SHOCK ABSORBERS".....THEY ARE CALLED " STRUTS"
Been around long time keeps going on
theyre the same damn thing lmao...a shock absorber is anything that absorbs shock...flexible landing gear on single props are shock absorbers too. Plus these planes use oil filled Oleo struts which work exactly the same and were LITERALLY PATENTED AS AN AIRPLANE SHOCK ABSORBER
@@Shadow0fd3ath24they are hydraulic struts. Not just oil filled shock absorbers. The C5 has a feature that allows the aircraft to kneel , lowering the plane to where the cargo ramp when opened is truck bed height.
Shock struts is what they were called in the maintenance technical orders while I was in... they were all air inflated hydraulic struts...
Welcome to the aircraft group
The C-5 aircrews seem to always have an inconvenient in-flight emergencies en route to Clark Air Base, Philippines. During that time while I was stationed as a USAF Security Policeman. As expected, both the plane and crew landed safely. So with a broken aircraft going nowhere fast, the C5 aircrew now had the good fortune of Temporary Duty (TDY) in paradise. No complaints there. The replacement parts would arrive from the US mainland within a week or more. Completing the repairs on time was another matter all together. Time to get drunk, party hard, buy stereo equipment, native Philippines furniture or other vices (wink wink)😂. Life was good being stationed at old Clark Air Base.
Also happened frequently at Grissom AFB Indiana, when the Indy 500 was scheduled.
@@robertheinkel6225 I was stationed at Grissom AFB from 1977-80. I was part of the 1915 Comm Sqdn.
I clicked on this because they said the C5 had a "problem." I guess I'm a sucker. The first clue should have been the vastly out-of-proportion photo in the thumbnail of the gear bogey with the man crouching underneath.
One time when I was stationed in Italy, there was a Galaxy facing away from my barracks room. After having it's engines on for a while, my door was covered in residue from the engine exhaust. The area it was loading/unloading from wasn't meant for an aircraft that size which is why it only happened once. I don't know the reason. It's an impressive aircraft but don't leave anything behind it if you want it to stay clean.
Riiiiiight ... maybe if your barracks door was 20 feet away it may have left "residue" before blowing out the windows and blowing the door of the hinges .... I was a Engine Mechanic and engine run certified on C-5`s and C-141 and find your story to filled with inaccuracies and make believe. There are minimum safe distances stated in the Engine Run T.O. behind the aircraft that have to be clear before even starting up the engines ... the higher the power setting you are going the further the safe distance is.
I can't say how close it was, but it felt too close given the size of the aircraft. I'm not an aircraft mechanic. I just had to clean the mess off my door when I got back from work. Just stating my perspective at the time.
The runway distances for takeoff and landing, measuring 8202 feet and 4921 feet, respectively, seem remarkably brief. This configuration is likely to be practical in only a limited set of circumstances, where the aircraft is relatively small, or the weather conditions are favorable. However, it is doubtful that an airplane could take off with only 4921 feet of runway. Such a feat would require a highly skilled pilot and a meticulously maintained aircraft, both rare in the aviation industry.
I saw a C-5 takeoff in 1800ft at Travis AFB. It was empty and only enough fuel for the airshow. We also had a strong headwind straight down the runway
The C-5 used to do training at my local airport. The runway is only 6,000 feet. We now have C-17s in and out about 3 times a week. What I miss is the F-15s coming in and out all the time. They are much more fun to watch than the F-22 Raptor that replaced them. The Raptor requires a longer runway than the Eagle did and is a lot noisier so the Air Force doesn't send them here as much.
I watched four takeoff in San A. They are so big, you think you are moving and they are stationary in the air.
I worked C-5s for 13 years both on the flight line and in shop. The C-5 is an amazing aircraft. I was stationed in Dover and was there from Nov 1981 to Jan 1988, then from Apr 1991 to Jan 1998.
Another lying title, still dont know the giant problem the plane has, you tube should come down hard on these conmen
Several years ago, when one wing of the West Virginia Air National Guard was still flying the C-5, they used to come to Greensboro to practice approaches and touch-an-goes. I always enjoyed seeing them flying around the pattern. They've since switched to the C-17, and they still come down to Greensboro to practice. The C-17 is fun to watch, but it just isn't quite the same. I first walked through a C-5 when the AF had one on display at Transpo 72 at Dulles.
There is a lot of incorrect info in this video.. Originally there were 77 C-5As. The B versions was very short lived, Lockheed built 54(?) C-5Ms which is the current standard
I used to love watching these Big Ol Pigs talke off from POPE AFB back in the 80's. Theu had a very distintive sound and looked as though they were moving way to slowly when they actually left the runway and went airborne!
A C-5 is "disastrous" simply because it carries cargo? You need to calm down and come to your senses.
It has also launched minute man missles
I have ridden on the C-5 twice and from the boom pod of a KC-135 watched a night refueling of a C-5. It is quite an aircraft. One bit of trivia not mentioned. The C-5's fuel capacity is more than the takeoff weight of the KC-135A. Riding backwards is not a problem as there are few windows on the passenger deck. The only time you realize your seating position is on takeoff and landing. The seats are rather comfortable. The spacing is not that tight. Granted the inflight meal was not great just a box lunch. Back during basic training at Lackland AFB, TX, to give you an idea how massive the C-5 is, my flight would see one flying off in the distance. The C-5 just seemed to hang in the air not moving. We swore that we were marching faster than the C-5 was flying!
I believe you have a type O, your said at 3:11 5300 mph instead of 5300 miles
You caught that too!
Badass bird, hopefully will last as long as the B-52, C-130 & CH-47 in service.
Ch-46 went Boom
The only worse problem is landing on a carrier. Someone else can tell me what's the heaviest to land on a carrier. (C-130, 121,000 pounds)
So we are in debt and are spending 100k per hour to fly an airport? Lol
Awesome is a small word to describe.
Amazing...I was in one at an airshow in willowgrove ,Pa...it represents the height of human ingenuity!!!
I remember hearing the C-5 getting warmed up at McChord Air Force Base in the late 1960’s.
I enjoy them operating at Travis AFB 40 miles from here. Sometimes they fly over and sometimes I watch them online on the ADS-B app. They have a distinctive sound and look like they are flying terribly slowly.
Yep. That's when I do something right and dressed for it at the same time. "STRUTS"
Imagine after retirement a airline company buying them and turning them into commercial jets? You could haul a lot of passengers in one of those with having several floors.
Yeah they can’t deflate the tires in flight. They removed that system (LPPS) a long time ago.
I was stationed at Dover Afb and can tell you the C5 is a great aircraft. You can load or unload in under an hour. Pallets or any vehicle that will fit. It was a great experience
436th AMSq Electric Shop Here
This is decade old news. The old bird has done a good job for the USAF. I worked on them at Dover Afb.
It's Giant, not a problem.
I sure. Do. Miss. Being stationed at cubi pt in the late 1970's San miguel was potent.
Just like the king Stallion. There is nothing else like it , and when you need it nothing else will do .
Seems like a prudent and essential addition to US military logistics rather than any sort of disaster. It’s no accident that the high-wing design is universally applied to the real heavy-haulers. This allows for more useable and continuous cargo space and will also be seen in the Antonov equivalents. It would be impossible to achieve with a low-wing design and be at the expense of load-height.
The cargo bay is 19 feet wide, not 62 feet.
Do I understand correctly that the Galaxy has a turning circle of only 21 meters?? My Renault Kangoo (1010kg) from 2004 doesn't even reach that....deep respect for this otherwise great aircraft, my first aircraft in which I flew was in 1971, a BAC-111 from British Airways, that 2-engine aircraft made more noise than a Galaxy...my now almost 40 year old son is a Sergeant-1 in the Dutch Army, has already been to Afghanistan 3 times and has also been in a Galaxy once, I am jealous of him.😉
It also has a tendency to "crab". That means it can't handle a strong side wind, otherwise it starts flying side ways.
If they have a very heavy cargo load. Do they takeoff with less fuel and then top off in flight?
Yes. When we would leave out of Dover AFB headed towards Europe if we were heavily loaded we would take off light on fuel and then refuel somewhere off the coast of Maine usually. You are not a dummy, good question.
Depends on the length of the mission. For short flight, air refueling is not required. For heavy loads, going overseas, air fefueling was needed. Basically the same as a KC-10.
@@robertheinkel6225 He said that.🙄
Normally on a channel mission we did not air refuel. On SAMs JATs and other missions we would air refuel. Most time we a/r it was for training/currency.
Fred????? When I was at Ramstein 74/76 we called it FAT ALBERT.
Landing gear for the X-30 NASP plane.
Its DISASTROUS. How ridiculous things people use words like ''horiffic'' and ''disastrous'' for nowadays ....
I saw one at McD Doug in Long Beach while doing a temp engineering job there. In 1990
Excellent Video. 👍🇺🇸
I'm surprised with the technology available that they haven't tried powering this with a nuclear powered electric turbo prop hybrid system.
9:32 Boeing 737 **proceeds to show the B747**
This baby kicks ass
Wow, the average house weighs 200,000 lbs. So this 800,000 lb aircraft flies and weighs as much as 4 average sized US homes.
thanks
YOU NEED TO SPRUCE UP YOUR AI VOICING!! IT IS NOT "TOREAJOHN"!
One of my two C-5 flights landed there. The next flight to Germany was in a T-39 Sabreliner. Talk about "downsizing"!
5300 MPH? WOW. Effing youtube. Trust 0% of it.
7:55 Excellent visibility.
Imagine that the military went over budget, who would have guessed?😂😂😂 Whow it has an "autopilot"! You never hear that the military upgrades the seats.
I WAS AN USAF AIRCRAFT CREW CHIEF SOMETIMES HAD MULTIPLE PLANES. I CHANGED TIRES AND LOT MORE. NOW RETIRED AT&T SENIOR TECH. TURNED DOWN C5A JOB IN GEORGIA.
9:32 I think you meant to say 747, and A380, b/c a 737 and A320 are about 1/3 the size of the 747 & A380, respectively. You DO show the correct planes, though.
Forgot to mention that they had to cut the wings off of the A models and replace them with stronger ones .
Ike warned us..the Industrial/Military complex...
What about the "FRED" part?
Yes, it's as if the writer had an epiphany shortly after alluding to that characterisation.
In my day in the Air Force, we just called the C-5 "Fat Albert".
C-5B Galaxy Cargo Plane - $78,817 according to Time Magazine. F-35-44,000 doolars per hour.
Anxiously awaiting cvn 80
Why are fighters (F-16's ?) being shown? TD
العمل والنشاطات والخبرات والتدريب والعمل والنشاطات
Kudos to US government plus military leaders for coming up with good ideas for Military transportation
2:22 - And so Boeing 747 was born...
Why would we use foreign made tires and American made on our planes?
at 3:06......"5300mph' is really fast!
The only problem that aircraft had a few of them with crack's spare on the wing.
You pronounced Torrejon incorrectly lol
The C5A suffered right wing metal fatigue, cracks and was a headache for Lockheed. It was designed by using a C141 design enlarged by computers as a shortcut to save money, unexpected stress occured. Still a great aircraft but can't compare to the B52 for design excellence.
For a long time the C5A had inflight weight restrictions due to that wing root metal fatigue problem. When it had to carry a lot of heavy cargo, it would takeoff with considerably less fuel than needed to complete the flight and depend on KC-135s (usually a formation of three) to meet it enroute and bring the fuel up....but the C%A could still not be "topped off" due to the inflight weight restriction. "Down the road" a few hours the C%A would meet up with another flight of KC-135s to repeat the process. I think they did this three or four times to get the long distance mission accomplished. I was on a co-pilot on a KC-135 crew doing this on more than one occasion. Fun times!
Bad assed plane.
Don't knock it if you ain't never worked on it.
I was a acft mechanic in air force was a C-5 mechanic,there was nothing wrong with the acft by the early 1980's,if you don't no anything don't say anything
Graphic overlay @ 3:10 states "5300 mph". - HA!
Cargo area 19m wide? You sure?
US metres. (feet)
I watched them land all the time in New England probably about a half mile from my house
Why do the crew wear camouflage uniforms?
Did you mean Boeing 747F?
I saw that and guess ed it was the C5 and I was like YEAaaAAaAsSsSsS
Thank God it's a Lockheed and not a Boeing or it would be in the scrap heap...
Remember, Boeing built the B-52s. They are even older than the C-5s. The KC-135s are Boeing built and in the air long before the C-5.
I wonder how long it would take for a NASCAR team to change the wheels?
Believe it or not if I remember right when NASCAR was racing at Dover in the 1990s, a pit crew went over to Dover AFB and was challenged to change a tire. So it has been done.
@@klsc8510 Very cool, thanks!
19 meters wide if only! 19 feet is pretty wide.
What is the GIANT Problem? I watched the entire video and didn't see it. No more videos from Beyond Fact. I will rename it to Beyond Truths.
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
100.000.000 per hour ⁉️
And why the covid 19 footage.?