Does anyone know if this information is available:
I flew out of Kadena on a C-5A in Feb 71. It broke down in Elemndorf AFB, Alaska. The problem was with the back-up hydralic system. I don't recall which unit the C-5 was from. It happened a day before the earthquake in LA as I passed through LA 6 hours before for the quake.
Is there a data base with AC problems for C-5's? I'm trying to establish I was in Kadena in Feb. 71 for a disability claim. Any information would be greatly appreciated.

Thanking all in advance,
Bruce

I would think the only way to prove you were in Kadena in Feb of 71 is to show your orders that proved it.
If the AF was the same in 71 as it was during my 20+ years, you had orders showing when you left the far east and came back stateside.

Do not remember 1971? There weren't too many databases of anything laying around. There is a maintenance system in place now that tracks aircraft and maintenance discrepancies associated with them that is maintained at TACC, but it won't go back to 1971 I can assure you. It also will not maintain any passenger manifest from 1971. I agree you will have to show PCS or TDY orders or something like that to prove you were there.

quote:

Is there a data base with AC problems for C-5's? I'm trying to establish I was in Kadena in Feb. 71 for a disability claim. Any information would be greatly appreciated.

Try checking the archives of www.afa.org or asking their research team.
http://www.au.af.mil/au/afhra/
or e-mail these guys:
afhso.research@pentagon.af.mil

I doubt they will be able to locate any passenger manifest from a broken C-5. Remember they used to break all the time in the 70's.

quote:

Originally posted by caninedale:
I doubt they will be able to locate any passenger manifest from a broken C-5. Remember they used to break all the time in the 70's.

crewed C-5 for many years and they still break all the time I'll take the C-130 any day it may be slower but it is the most dependable and yes i crewed one before the C-5

If you could remember the aircraft tail number, you might be able to do a maintenance record search.

However, I believe that is only available to active duty AF and reserves for security purposes.

quote:

Originally posted by ss_287:

quote:

Originally posted by caninedale:
I doubt they will be able to locate any passenger manifest from a broken C-5. Remember they used to break all the time in the 70's.

crewed C-5 for many years and they still break all the time I'll take the C-130 any day it may be slower but it is the most dependable and yes i crewed one before the C-5

C-17 is the way to go now because FRED is getting worse and the C-130 is too slow and too small. when a C-17 is in the system it is rare that it breaks because it was not built by the crackheads that built the C-5

quote:

Originally posted by gimmeaford1:

quote:

Originally posted by ss_287:

quote:

Originally posted by caninedale:
I doubt they will be able to locate any passenger manifest from a broken C-5. Remember they used to break all the time in the 70's.

crewed C-5 for many years and they still break all the time I'll take the C-130 any day it may be slower but it is the most dependable and yes i crewed one before the C-5

C-17 is the way to go now because FRED is getting worse and the C-130 is too slow and too small. when a C-17 is in the system it is rare that it breaks because it was not built by the crackheads that built the C-5

C-17 can't compare to the C-5, it has half the cargo capacity and less range. The C-5 can haul just about everything in the inventory from Abrams tanks to the MH-53 to the Mark V Spec ops boat. The C-17 can haul cargo or troops, the C-5 can take both.

The C-17 is a good replacement for the 141s, but it will never be able to do the mission of the C-5.

Just finished a three week TDY with the HQ AFSOC C-5 loadmaster. According to him the C-5M is funded. The B-model FREDS will AMP'd to that spec.

quote:

Originally posted by caninedale:
Just finished a three week TDY with the HQ AFSOC C-5 loadmaster. According to him the C-5M is funded. The B-model FREDS will AMP'd to that spec.

This is a true statement. We are currently getting ready to deliver the first 3 C5M aircraft that have been in Marietta conducting testing. Dover will fly them and go through testing and evaluation and then begin the transformation from AMP jets to RERP jets while the rest of the air force continues to be AMP'd. I won't make any comments about the "crackhead" comment above but the author definately hasn't spent much time doing any research.

[/QUOTE]C-17 can't compare to the C-5, it has half the cargo capacity and less range. The C-5 can haul just about everything in the inventory from Abrams tanks to the MH-53 to the Mark V Spec ops boat. The C-17 can haul cargo or troops, the C-5 can take both.

The C-17 is a good replacement for the 141s, but it will never be able to do the mission of the C-5.[/QUOTE]


while the C-5 does carry more in one flight, it is rare to get one in the air these days. the C-17 hardly ever breaks and a C-17 pilot is not as big a sissy as a C-5 pilot. the C-5 pansies whine about everything! especially the ones from the volunteer state! the FRED crews go somewhere they like and all of a sudden break. then the C-17 takes the load on because the piece of S!@#$$$T FRED is broke for a week because the book bout the NEW system is wrong and poorly written. so over all the C-17 does carry less but then again it carries more because of the big piece of JUNK. also, look at the MC rate of the C-5 and compare it to the C-17. there is no comparison in my opinion. oh and if you wanna take a hop you have a better chance on the C-17; the FRED will leave you stranded and wishing you would have paid the $1500 for the commercial flight.

a re-engine and some fancy screens, that break even more, will never make that piece of crap any better nor will it save any more in taxpayer dollars. the politicians are lying and being lied to about that. i still say that the C-17 is the way to go.

my research is backed by many years working on it from the flightline to the Depot level.

quote:

Originally posted by gimmeaford1:

C-17 can't compare to the C-5, it has half the cargo capacity and less range. The C-5 can haul just about everything in the inventory from Abrams tanks to the MH-53 to the Mark V Spec ops boat. The C-17 can haul cargo or troops, the C-5 can take both.

The C-17 is a good replacement for the 141s, but it will never be able to do the mission of the C-5.[/QUOTE]


while the C-5 does carry more in one flight, it is rare to get one in the air these days. the C-17 hardly ever breaks and a C-17 pilot is not as big a sissy as a C-5 pilot. the C-5 pansies whine about everything! especially the ones from the volunteer state! the FRED crews go somewhere they like and all of a sudden break. then the C-17 takes the load on because the piece of S!@#$$$T FRED is broke for a week because the book bout the NEW system is wrong and poorly written. so over all the C-17 does carry less but then again it carries more because of the big piece of JUNK. also, look at the MC rate of the C-5 and compare it to the C-17. there is no comparison in my opinion. oh and if you wanna take a hop you have a better chance on the C-17; the FRED will leave you stranded and wishing you would have paid the $1500 for the commercial flight.

a re-engine and some fancy screens, that break even more, will never make that piece of crap any better nor will it save any more in taxpayer dollars. the politicians are lying and being lied to about that. i still say that the C-17 is the way to go.

my research is backed by many years working on it from the flightline to the Depot level.[/QUOTE]

During the buildup for OIF the C-5 fleet flew 900 fewer sorties than the C-17 fleet but carried over 11,000 tons more in cargo and over 5,000 more passengers than the C-17s.

You are also out of line by attacking the crewmembers on the C-5. Think what you will about the airframe, but calling the crews pansies is unproffesional and just false.

I crewed C-5s for a few years back in the late 90s, and everything you have said about the pilots and crew is just plain untrue. I put in many 24 hour duty days flying outsized cargo into places most people have never heard of. Every person I flew with was dedicated to mission accomplishment from the moment of the crew alert at home station until mission complete.

The C-17 came onboard and early on it couldn't even fly across the pond without a gas stop. C-17s were flying from Charleston and stopping at Dover to top off their tanks. For a little while AMC made the C-5s stop at Lajes for no good reason except the C-17s had to just to fly the Atlantic.

The C-5 does break more often than the C-17, it is also older and the Air Force has been horrible at keeping parts in the system. So if the C-5 breaks somewhere for a week don't blame the airframe, blame the Air Force and its infatuation with the C-17. Ramstein, Mildenhall, Rota, etc all keep spares in stock for the C-17 but if the C-5 has a similar malfunction the part has to be shipped in from CONUS.

Very well written gimmeaford1, I'm sure you were someone who made a difference when you had your vast experience on the flightline and at depot. I would imagine the fine ops folks at Memphis would love to read your encouraging words, you are very well spoken.

There are always naysayers on every aircraft platform, doesn't surprise me we're hearing from one here either. He has little knowledge of the AMP program based on what he's written above. The taxpayers are getting ready to spend some large money on the RERP program that is designed to bring the C5 back from poor MC rates and maintenance problems to a economic money saving workhorse for another 30 years.

The C17 should not be compared to the C5. They both have 4 engines and a T-tail but thats where the comparison should end.

quote:

Originally posted by gimmeaford1:
a re-engine and some fancy screens, that break even more, will never make that piece of crap any better nor will it save any more in taxpayer dollars.

"Fancy screens"??? You must mean the C-17 is all analog then, right?

JIF