Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!newstop!sun!amdcad!amdcad!military
From: john@newave.mn.org (John A. Weeks III)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Sexy budgets & boring planes
Message-ID: <1991Apr1.043147.18198@amd.com>
Date: 31 Mar 91 15:26:01 GMT
References: <1991Mar28.032810.2836@amd.com>
Sender: military@amd.com
Organization: NeWave Communications Ltd, Eden Prairie, MN
Lines: 26
Approved: military@amd.com



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