Lockheed C-5 Galaxy - Wikipedia

CX-4 and Heavy Logistics System

edit

 

In 1961, several aircraft companies began studying heavy jet transport designs that would replace the Douglas C-133 Cargomaster and complement Lockheed C-141 Starlifters. In addition to higher overall performance, the United States Army wanted a transport aircraft with a larger cargo bay than the C-141, whose interior was too small to carry a variety of their outsized equipment. This need led to the CX-4 requirement of July 1962, for which Lockheed, Boeing, Convair, and Douglas proposed six-engined designs. When the US Army judged the CX-4 specification inadequate for its requirements, by late 1963 the CX-4 specification gave way to the CX-HLC requirement specified an airlifter with four engines, an equipped gross weight of 550,000 pounds (249,000 kg), a maximum payload of 180,000 lb (81,600 kg), and a speed of Mach 0.75 (500 mph or 805 km/h). The cargo compartment was 17.2 ft (5.24 m) wide by 13.5 feet (4.11 m) high and 100 ft (30.5 m) long with front and rear access doors. USAF studies showed that high-bypass turbofan engines were needed for thrust and fuel efficiency requirements.[2]

We started to build the C-5 and wanted to build the biggest thing we could … Quite frankly, the C-5 program was a great contribution to commercial aviation. We'll never get credit for it, but we incentivized that industry by developing [the TF39] engine.

General Duane H. Cassidy, former MAC Commander in Chief[3]

The criteria were finalized and an official request for proposal was issued in April 1964 for the "Heavy Logistics System" (CX-HLS) (previously CX-HLC, "Heavy Logistics Capability"). In May 1964, proposals for aircraft were received from Boeing, Douglas, General Dynamics, Lockheed, and Martin Marietta. General Electric, Curtiss-Wright, and Pratt & Whitney submitted proposals for the engines. After a downselect, Boeing, Douglas, and Lockheed were given one-year study contracts for the airframe, along with General Electric and Pratt & Whitney for the engines.[4] All three of the designs shared a number of features. The cockpit was placed well above the cargo area to allow for cargo loading through a nose door. The Boeing and Douglas designs used a pod on the top of the fuselage containing the cockpit, while the Lockheed design extended the cockpit profile down the length of the fuselage, giving it an egg-shaped cross section. All of the designs had swept wings, as well as front and rear cargo doors, allowing simultaneous loading and unloading.[5] Lockheed's design featured a T-tail, while the designs by Boeing and Douglas had conventional tails.[6][7][8]

The Air Force considered Boeing's design to be better than that of Lockheed, but Lockheed's proposal was the lowest total-cost bid.[9] Lockheed was selected as the winner in September 1965, then awarded a contract in December 1965.[6][10] General Electric's TF39 engine was selected in August 1965 to power the new transport plane.[6] At the time, GE's engine concept was revolutionary, as all engines before had a bypass ratio less than two-to-one, while the TF39 promised and would achieve a ratio of eight-to-one, which had the benefits of increased engine thrust and lower fuel consumption.[11][12] Boeing lost the military contract, but went on to develop its proposal into the successful civilian Boeing 747, the world's first wide-body airliner, with 1,574 aircraft built when manufacturing ended in 2022 after 54 years of production.

Into production

edit

The first C-5A Galaxy (serial number 66-8303) was rolled out of the manufacturing plant in Marietta, Georgia, on 2 March 1968.[13] On 30 June 1968, flight testing of the C-5A began with the first flight, flown by Leo Sullivan, with the call sign "eight-three-oh-three heavy". Flight tests revealed that the aircraft exhibited a higher drag divergence Mach number than predicted by wind tunnel data. The maximum lift coefficient measured in flight with the flaps deflected 40° was higher than predicted (2.60 vs. 2.38), but was lower than predicted with the flaps deflected 25° (2.31 vs. 2.38) and with the flaps retracted (1.45 vs. 1.52).[14]

After being one of the worst-run programs, ever, in its early years, it has evolved very slowly and with great difficulty into a nearly adequate strategic airlifter that unfortunately needs in-flight refueling or a ground stop for even the most routine long-distance flights. We spent a lot of money to make it capable of operating from unfinished airstrips near the front lines, when we never needed that capability or had any intention to use it.

Robert F. Dorr, aviation historian[15]

Aircraft weight was closely controlled during design and development. At the time of the first flight, the weight was below the guaranteed weight, but by the time of the delivery of the 9th aircraft, had exceeded guarantees.[14] In July 1969, during a fuselage upbending test, the wing failed at 128% of limit load, which is below the requirement that it sustain 150% of limit load. Changes were made to the wing, but during a test in July 1970, it failed at 125% of limit load. A passive load-reduction system, involving uprigged ailerons, was incorporated, but the maximum allowable payload was reduced from 220,000 to 190,000 lb (100,000 to 86,000 kg). At the time it was predicted, with a 90% probability, that no more than 10% of the fleet of 79 airframes would reach their fatigue life of 19,000 hours without cracking of the wing.[14]

 

Cost overruns and technical problems of the C-5A were the subject of a congressional investigation in 1968 and 1969.[16][17] The C-5 program was the first development program with a $1‑billion (equivalent to $8.6 billion today) overrun.[10][18] Due to the C-5's troubled development, the Department of Defense abandoned Total Package Procurement.[19] In 1969, Henry Durham raised concerns about the C-5 production process with Lockheed, his employer. Subsequently, Durham was transferred and subjected to abuse until he resigned. The Government Accountability Office substantiated some of his charges against Lockheed. Later, the American Ethical Union honored Durham with the Elliott-Black Award.[20] The Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Management Systems, Ernest Fitzgerald, was another person whose fostering of public accountability was unwelcome.[21]

Upon completion of testing in December 1969, the first C-5A was transferred to the Transitional Training Unit at Altus Air Force Base, Oklahoma. Lockheed delivered the first operational Galaxy to the 437th Airlift Wing, Charleston Air Force Base, South Carolina, in June 1970. Due to higher than expected development costs, in 1970, public calls were made for the government to split the substantial losses that Lockheed was experiencing.[22] Production was nearly brought to a halt in 1971 as Lockheed went through financial difficulties, due in part to the C-5 Galaxy's development, as well as a civilian jet liner, the Lockheed L-1011.[23] The U.S. government gave loans to Lockheed to keep the company operational.[24]

In the early 1970s, NASA considered the C-5 for the Shuttle Carrier Aircraft role, to transport the Space Shuttle to Kennedy Space Center. However, they rejected it in favor of the Boeing 747, in part due to the 747's low-wing design.[25] In contrast, the Soviet Union chose to transport its shuttles using the high-winged An-225,[26] which derived from the An-124, which is similar in design and function to the C-5.

During static and fatigue testing, cracks were noticed in the wings of several aircraft,[18] and as a consequence, the C-5A fleet was restricted to 80% of maximum design loads. To reduce wing loading, load alleviation systems were added to the aircraft.[27] By 1980, payloads were restricted to as low as 50,000 lb (23,000 kg) for general cargo during peacetime operations. A $1.5 billion program (equivalent to $8.3 billion today), known as H-Mod,[28] to re-wing the 76 completed C-5As to restore full payload capability and service life began in 1976.[29][30] After design and testing of the new wing design, the C-5As received their new wings from 1980 to 1987.[31][32][33]

Air-launched Minuteman ICBM feasibility test

edit

 

On 24 October 1974, the Space and Missile Systems Organization successfully conducted an air-launched ballistic missile test, where an 86,000-pound (39,000 kg) LGM-30B Minuteman I ICBM[34] got extracted by parachute from a C-5A Galaxy at 20,000 feet (6,100 m) over the Pacific Ocean (see also LAPES). The missile descended to 8,000 feet (2,400 m) before its rocket engine fired. The 10-second engine burn carried the missile to 20,000 feet (6,100 m) again before it dropped into the ocean. The test proved the feasibility of launching an intercontinental ballistic missile from the air (see video). Operational deployment was discarded due to engineering and security difficulties, though the capability was used as a negotiating point in the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks.[35][36] 39 years later, aircraft 69–0014, "Zero-One-Four" used in the test was retired to the Air Mobility Command Museum at Dover Air Force Base,[37] becoming the first C-5 Galaxy retired to a museum.[38]

Restarted production and development

edit

In 1974, Imperial Iran, having good relations with the United States, offered $160 million (equivalent to $1,020 million today) to restart C-5 production to enable Iran to purchase aircraft for their own air force,[39][40] in a similar climate as to their acquisition of F-14 Tomcat fighters.[41] However, no C-5s were ordered by Iran, and the prospect was firmly halted by the Iranian Revolution in 1979 when the Imperial State of Iran was replaced by the Islamic State of Iran.[42][43]

 

As part of President Ronald Reagan's military policy, funding was made available for expansion of the USAF's airlift capability. With the C-17 program still some years from completion, Congress approved funding for a new version of the C-5, the C-5B, in July 1982, to expand airlift capacity.[44][45][46] The first C-5B was delivered to Altus Air Force Base in January 1986. In April 1989, the last of 50 C-5B aircraft was added to the 77 C-5As in the Air Force's airlift force structure. The C-5B includes all C-5A improvements and numerous additional system modifications to improve reliability and maintainability.[47]

In 1998, the Avionics Modernization Program (AMP) began upgrading the C-5's avionics to include a glass cockpit, navigation equipment, and a new autopilot system.[48] Another part of the C-5 modernization effort is the Reliability Enhancement and Re-engining Program (RERP). The program replaced the engines with newer, more powerful ones.[49]

A total of 52 C-5s were contracted to be modernized, consisting of 49 B-, two C- and one A-model aircraft through the RERP. The program featured over 70 changes and upgrades, including the newer General Electric engines.[50][51] Three C-5s underwent RERP for testing purposes. Low-rate initial production started in August 2009 with Lockheed reaching full production in May 2011;[citation needed] 22 C-5M Super Galaxies have been completed as of August 2014.[52] RERP upgrades were completed on 25 July 2018. The Air Force received the last modified aircraft on 1 August 2018.[53][54]

In 2014, Lockheed investigated drag reduction by plasma-heating of turbulent transonic airflow in critical points, saving overall weight by reducing fuel consumption. The Air Force Research Laboratory looked into shape-memory alloy for speed-dependent vortex generators.[55]