Military Review

A brief photo essay about the largest US Air Force aircraft

61

With a wingspan of 100 meters, a length of almost 136 meters, the height of the tail section of 30 meters, the C-5 Galaxy manufactured by Lockheed Martin is the largest military transport aircraft of the US Air Force.



The cargo bay has a length of 55 meters and a width of 9 meters. The C-5 is a flying warehouse that can transport a military unit ready for battle or deliver the necessary supplies to anywhere in the world.


Before giving some interesting facts, it is worth starting with his nickname “FRED”. What does it mean? “F-cking Ridiculous Economic Disaster” (fucking ridiculous collapse of the economy), because if the C-5 crash happens, it can cause a real FRED


From 1968, day and night, the C-5 carries heavy loads. Consequently, it is nearing its fiftieth anniversary.


The updated C-5M Super Galaxy models have now received new, more powerful engines, and the modernization continues through the installation of digital components. So, even years and years will fly. In this post, only a few examples of the cargo that Galaxy aircraft are transporting around the world.


There are several facts (mixed with several hypothetical scenarios) about this gigantic workhorse:


When the Wright brothers made their first historical flight, he could not even think that their device would fly a distance less than half the length of the S-5 cargo compartment.


The C-5 transporter has a tonnage of 142. What does it matter if you take the civil modes of transport?
-100 Volkswagen Zhukov
-58 Cadillacs
-6 buses Greyhound


If you wanted to play bowling on a C-5 plane, this would not cause problems, since it can hold eight bowling lanes.


To understand all the fasteners of the huge C-5 aircraft is difficult.
- 411900 is located on the wings
- 64900 in tail unit
- 1182000 on the fuselage (the main body of the aircraft With 5)
A total of 1 654 800 fasteners.



Unloading attack aircraft A-10 Thunderbolt.


The capacity of fuel tanks 185 tons, which is equal to the volume of 6,5 rail tankers.



One, two ... answer 28 wheels.


And how much does all this wheel weigh?
Each wheel weighs 1900 kg.


If someone needs it, he can carry only some 26 million ping-pong balls.
China, are you jealous? Joke…


Only an engine with a diameter greater than 3 meters.


If Christopher Columbus had taken the whole 90 team from all his three ships to America, they could easily have been placed on the Galaxy's upper deck ... and could play football in the aircraft’s cargo compartment.



Unloading from the C-5 Galaxy a 37-meter boat for the American fleet at the naval base of Coronado.


Unloading the helicopter AN-64 Apache.


The F-16 fighters are waiting for the Rex Tyrannosaurus to cross the intersection.


As for electrical engineering and wiring, you may be interested to know that there are more than 8 kilometers of control cables in this aircraft.


If you start to compare the size, then the military transport C-130 Hercules (photo above and below) is also huge. The C-130F / H / J variants have a 44 meter length, a wingspan of 60 meters and can accept a 92 fully equipped fighter.


The following photo shows how the fuselage of the C-130 aircraft Hercules enters inside the giant Galaxy.


The total mass of the Galaxy wings alone is over 36 tons, which is equivalent to the C-130 Hercules mass (minus the mass of its engines).


The F-18 Hornet fighter enters.


You need a lot of rubber to make this big guy land. As mentioned earlier, in total it has 28 wheels. Rack with four wheels in front and 24 wheels in the fuselage under the wings, 4 block on six wheels.


The front chassis can turn 90 degrees during taxiing and 20 degrees during takeoff and landing.


In addition to the transfer of weapons, these aircraft also deliver thousands of tons of assistance to those who need it. Only at one time this giant is able to deliver 3934 bushels of wheat to those who do not know when the next opportunity to eat will be presented.


Download a multi-purpose transport helicopter CH-53 Super Stallion.







If you need to deliver to the battlefield and make good noise with the good old a tank M1A1 Abrams, the Galaxy will deliver two at a time.




At the top of the AC-130 Hercules Specter (also known as "Spooks"), firing false heat targets. Below C-5 Galaxy, shooting false thermal targets.



The volume of fuel tanks of the C-5 military transport aircraft is equal to the volume of the average five-room house.


If you have a headache, he will deliver 328 301 674 aspirin tablets


The first flight of the C-5 took place in the 1968 year. It's funny to see him in his old camouflage coloring in the company of the attack helicopters AN-1 Cobra and the UHl-1 Huey light-duty passenger helicopter.


Hello, Thunderbolt II!


Goodbye CH-47 Chinook!


FRED has happened, but C-5 is not worried. Loading the crashed Galaxy aircraft into another C-5.






The M109 self-propelled howitzer rides right on you.


But the last important question is, how many cans of beer can it hold?


Box weight with 24 bottles around 17 kg.


That is, you can pack about 7475 boxes in it.



In Afghanistan alone, more than 120 thousand tons of various cargoes and armored vehicles were loaded onto C-5 Galaxy military transport aircraft.



Materials used:
www.thechive.com
www.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
61 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. The comment was deleted.
  2. Mavrikiy
    Mavrikiy 19 December 2016 05: 35
    +4
    How will it be in Latin: Common crap, big?
    1. Bayonet
      Bayonet 19 December 2016 05: 56
      33
      Quote: Mavrikiy
      How will it be in Latin: Common crap, big?

      I don't know what "crap" is in Latin, but I know what to answer to such a comment -stultum!
      And the S-5 plane is really an achievement in engineering and has been flying for almost 50 years.
      1. Titsen
        Titsen 19 December 2016 06: 56
        +1
        Quote: Bayonet
        And the S-5 plane is really an achievement in engineering and has been flying for almost 50 years.


        One gets the impression of the article and the above presented comments: Do you want this xp ... Sell to us?

        Keep it for yourself!
        1. Bad_gr
          Bad_gr 20 December 2016 23: 58
          +3
          Cabin S-5 Galaxy
      2. The leader of the Redskins
        The leader of the Redskins 19 December 2016 07: 42
        28
        "Crap" is a commentary by a hurry-up who first wrote it for the sake of epaulettes. And the plane is worthy of attention. But I just don't understand - if they have Galaxy, then why do they use the services of our Ruslans? ..
        1. sergeybulkin
          sergeybulkin 19 December 2016 08: 40
          +3
          "Crap" is a hurry-up comment

          The plane is undoubtedly good, BUT sooo expensive, and very difficult to manufacture, in other respects this applies to all aircraft. The people still argue who stole the blueprints from someone, we are unih or we have them - a joke. IL-76 has nothing to do with Galaxy.
          1. saturn.mmm
            saturn.mmm 19 December 2016 09: 59
            +5
            Quote: sergeybulkin
            IL-76 has nothing to do with Galaxy.

            IL-76 is a different class, it must be compared with the C-17 Globmaster
            1. Bersaglieri
              Bersaglieri 19 December 2016 18: 02
              +2
              IL-76 is the "answer" to the C-141 "Starlifter"
          2. lelikas
            lelikas 19 December 2016 13: 09
            +3
            Quote: sergeybulkin
            The plane is undoubtedly good, BUT sooo expensive, and very difficult to manufacture, in other respects this applies to all aircraft. The people still argue who stole the blueprints from someone, we are unih or we have them - a joke. IL-76 has nothing to do with Galaxy.

            Digging fine;)
    2. xetai9977
      xetai9977 19 December 2016 14: 08
      +4
      Great car! Respect to the engineers! 50 years already in service!
  3. Comrade Stalin
    Comrade Stalin 19 December 2016 06: 15
    +2
    When the Wright brothers made their first historical flight, he could not even think that their apparatus would fly less than half the length of the C-5 cargo compartment.

    From the moment of the first flight of the Wright brothers and until the take-off of the S-5, only 65 years have passed. The old S-5 has been flying for 48 years, and by 1951, 48 years after Wright, jet planes were flying with might and main, and even the planes of the early 1940s were already hopelessly outdated ... Is progress progressing now and then? Will we soon turn back like Eloi and Morlock?
    1. Aleksandr12
      Aleksandr12 19 December 2016 15: 03
      +1
      Progress does not stand still, just what was done in the 60s-70s is enough. And new developments are terribly expensive and do not justify investments. If they didn’t get along with Ukraine, the development of new IL-s over heavyweights would not be on the agenda.
    2. gladcu2
      gladcu2 21 December 2016 01: 35
      +7
      Comrade Stalin

      And what to do ... This ugly banking system, mixed with liberalism, easily shakes off any progress and drives into such a regression that a club with nails will be more expensive than a computer. Since the mammoth computer does not work.

      Yes, V.I. was right Lenin.
  4. ICT
    ICT 19 December 2016 06: 28
    0
    And how much does all this wheel weigh?


    I was embarrassed by another
    1. this is not a breakthrough.
    2 they somehow say it is somehow sparse in comparison with our heavyweights


    1. Comrade Stalin
      Comrade Stalin 19 December 2016 06: 48
      10
      It was just that they invested a very large margin of safety in aircraft designs in the USSR. As an example, you can cite the Tu-154 with the main chassis of two bogies of 6 wheels each, in total the aircraft is supported by 14 wheels, and similar to the carcass according to the take-off weight of the B-737, in which the main chassis of only two bogies has 2 wheels, and the plane leans on only 6 wheels.

      Just in pursuit of economic profitability, the fewer the wheels, the less they weigh, therefore, due to the saved mass due to the chassis, you can take more fuel, or increase the load.
      By the way, in the picture, the Alrosovskaya Tushka, which accidentally sat in Izhma and plowed over 150 m of muddy soil in autumn, rolled out of the strip at 164 m.
      If it were a B-737, then the plane would burrow into the ground and fall apart, followed by a fire. And so, thanks to the safety margin, none of the people were injured.
      1. neri73-r
        neri73-r 19 December 2016 16: 30
        +5
        Everything is very simple, in the days of the USSR, civilian aircraft were a reserve of the BTA, and accordingly they were designed and made for landing on unpaved strips!
        1. gladcu2
          gladcu2 21 December 2016 01: 42
          +4
          Any passenger plane goes into the category of freight traffic after a certain period of operation on passenger lines.

          I’m not sure that Soviet superstrength is the right decision. Airplanes do not beat often, but they fly for a long time. And extra pounds become expensive resources. But the golden mean is difficult to calculate. Therefore, we assume that the two concepts are correct.
    2. abrakadabre
      abrakadabre 19 December 2016 13: 09
      +4
      The number of landing gear wheels last but not least depends on which runways the aircraft is designed for. Ours can land (and emergency landings prove it) Even on dense ground. And with a small number of wheels - only concrete. on an unpaved runway, the plane buries.
      1. Bad_gr
        Bad_gr 20 December 2016 23: 42
        +2
        Chassis Tu-144
  5. ICT
    ICT 19 December 2016 07: 08
    +7
    The capacity of fuel tanks 185 tons, which is equal to the volume of 6,5 rail tankers.


    by the way, our tanks contain approximately 60 tons
    1. ICT
      ICT 19 December 2016 07: 18
      +2
      chive on


      By the way, only after the translation I thought

      our filling hoses were torn, and it happened to them that the bar broke?
  6. Observer2014
    Observer2014 19 December 2016 07: 11
    +5
    Not so much it (Galaxy) and spacious. I would say the size and volume of the transported goods is not amazing at all. I saw this plane many times. I liked this: This is the only thing that our transporters lack. It is the total use of refueling systems. The Russian military may have had enough range before. But times are changing. The Russian army is already the most mobile army in the world. And the use of refueling systems will make our army even more mobile.
    1. gladcu2
      gladcu2 21 December 2016 01: 45
      +1
      Russia has not yet passed into the category of "democratizers". Therefore, transportation over a distance without refueling.
  7. san4es
    san4es 19 December 2016 08: 15
    16
    I wonder how many pins he can lift into the air?
  8. uskrabut
    uskrabut 19 December 2016 08: 43
    +3
    Impressive! And what about Ruslan or IL-76 in comparison with this miracle of American aviation?
    1. Alex_59
      Alex_59 19 December 2016 13: 23
      19
      Quote: uskrabut
      about Ruslan

      The carrying capacity is higher. But it was not lucky to be born in the transition period of our history - in terms of the number of aircraft produced, Ruslan was far behind the C-5. In addition, Ruslan became somewhat redundant. C-5 is needed by the USA, because they climb everywhere - all over the world. They need to regularly transfer large masses of equipment and weapons to regions quite distant from America. Which determines the role and place of the C-5 - one of the two main US transport aircraft. And no one poses such tasks to Ruslan. Its transportation is less large-scale, therefore, the majority of Ruslanov issued for the Air Force is really idle at the Seshcha airfield near Bryansk and in Ulyanovsk - in storage. Only a few Air Force planes are constantly operated.
      Quote: uskrabut
      or IL-76

      Another class of aircraft. Easier. But extremely successful. Successful because it fits perfectly into the structure of our needs. And our needs are more modest than American ones - we need to carry more and more often to different places, but not such huge consignments. In addition, the Il-76 is an ideal aircraft for the Airborne Forces - it takes exactly one platoon aboard and drops without landing. It lands and takes off in any place forgotten by God, because has unique take-off and landing performance characteristics. Sits quietly on the ground. Exceptional landing characteristics are achieved thanks to a unique wing with powerful mechanization. EMNIP is the only aircraft of this class in the world capable of staying in the air at a speed of less than 300 km / h. The stall speed with a mass of 150 tons (aircraft + cargo 50 tons + minimum landing fuel reserve) is only 272 km / h. The same, without cargo - only 210 km / h. Some people drive faster with cars - and then an airplane weighing 100 tons in the air!
      1. uskrabut
        uskrabut 19 December 2016 13: 46
        +5
        Thanks for the helpful knowledge. By the way, on the 76th I had a chance to fly a couple of times, there another 2nd floor was suspended for greater capacity
  9. saturn.mmm
    saturn.mmm 19 December 2016 09: 21
    13
    Author
    The C-5 transporter has a tonnage of 142. What does it matter if you take the civil modes of transport?

    The C-5 has never flown with such a load, after all the upgrades when it was called the C-5M Super Galaxy, only in 2006 its carrying capacity was 120 tons, in comparison, in 1985 the Soviet An-124 Ruslan raised to a height of 11.000 m cargo of 171 tons.
    Thanks for the good photo story.
    1. Baikal
      Baikal 19 December 2016 14: 50
      +9
      It turns out that only after the 2006 year did he get the opportunity to ride Abrams on the 2?
      And the photo essay and the American article were translated, evident from the style of writing. Yankees love to write as for the retarded, like "so much shit and so many sticks this crap can take away."
  10. eleronn
    eleronn 19 December 2016 09: 31
    +2
    The C-5 Galaxy is a monoplane and has no wings! He has one wing or two wing consoles.
    1. saturn.mmm
      saturn.mmm 19 December 2016 12: 32
      +2
      Quote: eleronn
      The C-5 Galaxy is a monoplane and has no wings!

      Maybe a monoplane with two wings, an example of the Tu-144.
      1. byxarik1
        byxarik1 19 December 2016 14: 39
        +1
        why doesn't the plane flap its wings?
        1. byxarik1
          byxarik1 19 December 2016 14: 44
          +3
          The biplane has 2 wings (two bearing surfaces), one - a monoplane. It is mistakenly perceived that a conventional aircraft has two wings, left and right. In fact, this is one wing - one bearing surface. When an airplane has three wings, it is a triplane. Four wings - a quadroplane, but more often than three are already called simply in one word - a multiplan.
          1. saturn.mmm
            saturn.mmm 19 December 2016 23: 22
            +1
            Quote: byxarik1
            The biplane has 2 wings (two bearing surfaces), one is a monoplane

            Bukharik, monoplane, two wings.
            1. Mordvin 3
              Mordvin 3 19 December 2016 23: 32
              +3
              Quote: saturn.mmm
              monoplane, two wings.

              Duc that all four. Quartetoplan, no? wassat
  11. ARES623
    ARES623 19 December 2016 10: 46
    17
    Probably for mattresses it’s good to calculate the aircraft’s carrying capacity in aspirin tablets or ping pong balls, but they definitely have a problem with tons and meters. Judging by the description in the article, the cargo compartment has a size of 55 by 9 meters, while on different resources this size is limited to 36,91 meters long and 5,79 meters wide. Isn't that a big difference !? With a carrying capacity of 142 tons, they also got excited. It is seen strongly dreaming in a dream. But they took railway tanks from the time of development of the western part of North America - 28,46 tons each. Our tanks from RZD Razik will be 3 more. The car is certainly not bad, one might even say very good. But for the truth in the commercials - without a calculator in the hands and additional sources they can not be trusted. Such is their nature, lying even in small things.
    1. uskrabut
      uskrabut 19 December 2016 13: 50
      +4
      The weight in bushels of grain is given, it does not say anything to the Russian. We would be in tons or centners.
      1. ARES623
        ARES623 19 December 2016 14: 21
        +7
        Quote: uskrabut
        The weight in bushels of grain is given, it does not say anything to the Russian. We would be in tons or centners.

        That is all Anglo-Saxon arrogance. The whole world works in the SI system, but they definitely need highs - bushels, pints, gallons. We are already a table of years, as we don’t measure buckets of liquid, and for them everything is not like for people - barrels (barrels). When A.N. Tupolev copied his Tu-29 from B-4, the biggest hemorrhagic was the transfer of sizes in the project from American measures to SI.
        1. Bayonet
          Bayonet 19 December 2016 18: 02
          +4
          Quote: ARES623
          That is all Anglo-Saxon arrogance. The whole world works in the SI system, but they definitely need highs - bushels, pints, gallons.

          They forgot how in the USSR grain was measured exclusively in pounds, because the numbers are more impressive! laughing And bushels, pints, gallons, etc. - these are traditional measures of weight and volume for some countries.
          By the way, diamonds are also not weighed in kilograms, according to the SI system. wassat
          So much for "arrogance"
          1. ARES623
            ARES623 19 December 2016 21: 07
            +4
            Quote: Bayonet
            They forgot how in the USSR grain was measured exclusively in pounds, because the numbers are more impressive!

            I confess, yes, I forgot ..... I remember something about centners, but I read about poods in novels about pre-revolutionary times. But then, much was different. And the word "globalism" has never been heard. With diamonds, too, a bobble, not in kilograms. So after all, the distribution of diamonds cannot be compared with other substances, steel, bread and others. Although, maybe in your case I'm wrong, maybe you are shipping diamonds day and night by trucks? Well, excuse me ... But why don't the champions of International Law want to recognize the International Standard? Can you have another explanation for this? Ali Franks and the rest of the world with them Britons not a decree?
          2. Bad_gr
            Bad_gr 20 December 2016 23: 51
            +3
            Quote: Bayonet
            They forgot how in the USSR grain was measured exclusively in pounds, ...

            :) So, after all, they compared it with Russia in 1913, and then they considered it in pounds (?).
    2. jonhr
      jonhr 19 December 2016 14: 24
      +2
      he takes exactly two abrams on board. here it is necessary to build on this. and abrams weighs at least 62 tons
      1. ARES623
        ARES623 19 December 2016 14: 41
        +5
        Quote: jonhr
        he takes exactly two abrams on board. here it is necessary to build on this. and abrams weighs at least 62 tons

        So that is the point of modernization. When Abrash weighed 54 tons, the modernization of the S-5 counted on g / p up to 110 tons, now the M-1 has gone beyond 63 tons, it is necessary to raise the power of the aircraft. This is the normal course of life in the army and military-industrial complex of any country. So the An-70 was developed, developed, but it, having not really really taken off, was already outdated and did not meet the army requirements. As, in fact, the country of origin
    3. Airman
      Airman 23 December 2016 12: 25
      +1
      Yes, of course, there will be no 9 meters wide. Look at the photo, and compare the sizes of people and the width of the plane ... It’s a little narrow for the 9 declared.
  12. abrakadabre
    abrakadabre 19 December 2016 13: 05
    10
    RџSЂRё wingspan 100 meters length almost 136 meters tail height 30 meters C-5 Galaxy manufactured by Lockheed Martin is the largest military transport aircraft of the US Air Force.
    Either the guys have some other meters, or a great fishing enthusiast wrote after an extra stopar ...
    Flight Performance C-5B
    Wingspan - 67,88 m
    Aircraft Length - 75,54 m
    The height of the aircraft - 19,85 m
    Wing area - 575,98 m²
    Weight
    empty plane - 169 643 kg
    Maximum takeoff - 379 657 kg

    Well, there are further characteristics. Who is not lazy, let him find.
    1. uskrabut
      uskrabut 19 December 2016 13: 51
      +3
      So I didn’t like the wingspan right away laughing
    2. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 19 December 2016 16: 04
      +7
      It seems that the author, when translating from feet to meters, divided by 2,
      not three (roughly) as needed.
      1. 52
        52 19 December 2016 17: 06
        +4
        You, Dear, do not understand anything! In Great America, and great meters!)))
  13. 52
    52 19 December 2016 17: 05
    +4
    A good story about a good plane. Plus definitely.
  14. Bersaglieri
    Bersaglieri 19 December 2016 18: 00
    +4
    Why, instead of feet, did they write meters? :)
    The half-span is 100 feet (i.e. 30 meters, full span is 60). Height - over 30 feet (10 meters). Again zhurnolamery-"translators" with PROMT-glitch repost? :(
  15. tinibar
    tinibar 19 December 2016 18: 43
    +2
    [quote = Leader of the Redskins] "Crap" is the commentary of the hurry-up who wrote it very first for the sake of epaulettes. And the plane is worthy of attention. But I just don't understand - if they have a Galaxy, then why do they use the services of our Ruslans? .. [
    The plane, of course, is cool, and beautiful, moreover ... But here is the author: With a wingspan of 100 meters, a length of almost 136 meters, and a tail height of 30 meters, the C-5 Galaxy
    Is it crap? Its length is 75m, and its span is about 70 ...
  16. twincam
    twincam 19 December 2016 22: 27
    +3
    I will not say that I feel a love for mattresses, but some manifestations of their engineering, frankly, are worthy of respect.
  17. All terrain vehicle
    All terrain vehicle 20 December 2016 08: 49
    +2
    Quote: ARES623
    Probably for mattresses it’s good to calculate the aircraft’s carrying capacity in aspirin tablets or ping pong balls, but they definitely have a problem with tons and meters. Judging by the description in the article, the cargo compartment has a size of 55 by 9 meters, while on different resources this size is limited to 36,91 meters long and 5,79 meters wide. Isn't that a big difference !? With a carrying capacity of 142 tons, they also got excited. It is seen strongly dreaming in a dream. But they took railway tanks from the time of development of the western part of North America - 28,46 tons each. Our tanks from RZD Razik will be 3 more. The car is certainly not bad, one might even say very good. But for the truth in the commercials - without a calculator in the hands and additional sources they can not be trusted. Such is their nature, lying even in small things.


    Also looking at the photo I wondered where it was 9 meters from ...
  18. Maz
    Maz 20 December 2016 09: 50
    +2
    Is our Ruslan more or less?
  19. Loki_2
    Loki_2 20 December 2016 10: 55
    +3
    He was struck by the number of bushels of wheat that this plane could carry. Article translated by a translator from google English. No attempt has been made to adapt it to the domestic mentality. Conclusion - low-quality trash. It's a pity the minutes were canceled ...
    1. acrshooter
      acrshooter 21 December 2016 04: 32
      +2
      Quote: Loki_2
      It's a pity the minutes were canceled ...

      And seconds? What's up with the seconds ?!
      They were also canceled, or even banned? ..
      1. Loki_2
        Loki_2 18 June 2017 20: 16
        0
        Comrade no need to scuffle. We later realized that this was a typo. Correct read: sorry cons canceled.
    2. LAWNER
      LAWNER 16 June 2017 09: 26
      +1
      Therefore, there is no photo with wheat)))
  20. fzr1000
    fzr1000 21 December 2016 09: 44
    +1
    Class, thanks for the report.
  21. lexx2038
    lexx2038 21 December 2016 23: 15
    +3
    -100 Volkswagen Zhukov
    -58 Cadillacs
    -6 buses Greyhound ...
    Why didn’t they write how many football fields will fit there? They measure everything with stadiums, otherwise I don’t understand - I don’t have 58 Cadillacs.
  22. novobranets
    novobranets April 1 2017 05: 34
    0
    Translation of a self-praising Amerz article. Well, who else will count how many balls from ping-pong and aspirin tablets will go into this flying barn? This is so true.