As pointed out there is one error near the end of the video. I call the other Lockheed Starlifter civil version the L-200 but it is in fact ** *the L-300* . Forgive me please. AND - Mach 0.75 isn't 8000km per hour (hyperloop in the sky lol) - MY BAD! sorry :)
I've flown in a C-5 coming back from a TDY, in the top section above the main cargo area. It was the BEST flight experience I have ever had, the seats were like sitting first class, so much room. Slept like a champ!
@@insylem only the takeoff was kind of weird at first, but used to it shortly after wheels were off the ground, the rest of the flight was awesome! I'd fly top of a C-5 over a C-17 any time, flown C-17 at least 4 times, maybe more.
There is a certain irony in that the 747 design started out as an alternative to the C-5 cargo plane. When the C5 won the competition, Boeing looked for an alternate use for the design. They moved from a high wing to a low wing, and the rest is history.
The 747 was designed around the container. The reason it has that teardrop shape is to create the space to shove in shipping containers as they were taking off massively at the time. Today while it is sometimes done usually containers don't contain time sensitive goods and the all steel boxes really cut into the carrying capacity.
Another plane that has come and gone was the bristol something. You could take your car with you if you wanted. It was a fully functional airline that operated somewhere in the south of UK. Don't know why this airline went but it worked on a schedule for years.
@@VictorRodriguez-cg1kg IIRC, it was planned as cargo, switched to passenger, and then years later someone thought "What if this was an aircraft carrier?. In that order
I flew in a C5 once from Canada to Germany. In the cargo hold there were 2 recon tanks and several helicopters. Absolutely breath-taking scale of things! Only problem with the passenger modules is, you are flyng backwards, i.e. you are facing the back of the plane.
I live near a base they land and take off from, when they start screeching when they're coming in for a landing it always sounds like a planes about to hit the house lmao
Actually, there is a built-in passenger compartment that you have to climb a ladder to access. It accommodates 56 people in forward-facing airline-style seats upstairs just in front of the empinaige (tail section). I'm not sure if it is uniformly configured this way in every aircraft. Apparently, it was designed to make good use of otherwise unusable space required by the airframe.
That Qatari C-17 at 16:20 isn't actually part of Qatar Airways. It is a Qatari Air Force Jet that is operated as part of the Qatar Amiri Flight, a VIP airline operated by the Government of Qatar. Their aircraft are painted in the regular Qatar Airways livery. When you look close at the C-17 in other pictures, you will notice that the roundel of the Qatar Air Force is painted on the wing.
I was a college student in the early 1970's. While visiting Berkeley with my college buddy, I was able to meet with cousin "John" out at Travis airbase (near Sacramento). Just so happened John was chief instructor pilot for the C-5, and he invited us to see inside one of them. Amazing experience. And if you see TH-cam videos of the thing taking off, the engines make a unique "growl" at full tilt.
I flew from Dover AFB to NAS Rota on a C-5 with my family back in 1998. Loooong overnight flight. I remember the lack of windows and rear-facing seats more than the noise. The boarding stairs going up to the aft fuselage were exhausting (I was carrying my daughter and a car seat slung over my shoulder). Overall, it was a great experience (although, _any_ free tranatlantic flight is a great experience).
A military aircraft isn't comparable in financial economy to a civilian one, so they don't have to fear anything. There's a reason airlines usually never use aircraft originally made for military, done special cases (like Antonov Airlines for bulky cargo) excepted
@@MrTaxiRob AN-225? yeah, I dont think so, theres only 2 in existence, its the biggest plane ever, only one has ever flown. only russia and ukraine have them, ukraine's is the one that never flew, maybe you mean the 124?
@@AnComZharptitza no dude, I'm not mistaken, I'm not making it up, but that doesn't mean it will actually be built, just that someone bought the rights to develop it further and possibly build passenger versions. I personally don't think there's a market for that, but I'd buy a ticket just for the experience if I could. It's the most beautiful thing that's ever flown IMO, like a 1970 Lincoln Continental in the sky.
@@bftjoe Look up "British United Air Ferries ", it's interesting. They operated planes that transported cars between mainland UK, France, Belgium, the Netherlands and the Channel Islands.
@@materiagrezza9331 The last car ferry operated in 1977 not the 80s. Not sure how popular something can be when they only had a handful of airplanes and stopped offering ferry service.
Two slight note about the troop capacity, yes there is a specific troop compartment that can carry 75 pax, but there is also a courier compartment at the rear of the flight deck which can carry a few more. In addition to that it can (though generally doesnt) have troop seating and comfort(toilet) pallets loaded into the cargo area increasing the capacity that way.
THE C-5 GALAXY IS MY MOST FAVORITE AIRCRAFT EVER!!!! (THE C-5A especially, as it had those AWESOME TF-39 ENGINES!!!! Imagine passenger. THAT WOULD BE INSANE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Yep I flew one while in the service. 4 LMTVs (trucks) 2 uh60 helicopters, 4 crates of supplies downstairs and a company of infantry upstairs. It's big!!!
The only military aircraft that comes to mind having somewhat successfully made the jump to civilian life might be the Tupolev TU-114, which was based on the TU-95 bomber. Although, it wasn’t a direct conversion as the wings had to be lowered and the fuselage enlarged to become an airliner
It's great to see the Lockheed L-500 get a good amount of attention. Great job. And by the way, would you like to do a video of Boeing's mid-wing double decker twin jet patent in the future? Because I think that would quite fun to watch as well. Don't you agree?
The C-5 military version has a passenger compartment isolated from the flight deck aft, above the cargo deck. It's accessed by its own ladder and that is where there are permanent seats for 73 passengers and two crew. The aircraft is configurable with airline type seats on pallets that rolled in and locked into the cargo rails. It's been too many years now and I can't remember exactly how many seats it is but I think it's something around 250. I never flew a mission that use them.
I recall the September 1969 issue of National Geographic which had an article on transportation. In it there was an artists rendition of a civilian version of the C-5 Galaxy set up to transport automobiles.
I remember one of these taking off at an air show in the early 90’s when they were showing off the f117 and b2 which were both relatively quiet than that beast came out and was incredibly loud and massive! It’s almost unbelievable to see something that big take off and fly. The blue angles were there but the star of the show was def the f14 aerial show and bow at the end.
My dad had a 1969 Corvair Monza in Hawaii. He loved that car... Maybe I loved it more than he did, but if the L-500 existed then he would have had that car shipped to Texas instead of enduring its rather poor gas mileage, as the engine was setup for weekend racing. Still that plane would have changed so much of the world, not just my little corner.
“I can't see it coming under fire in Detroit “ Sir, living in Michigan I take offense to that statement. Of course it would come under fire! Great video friend
Back in the 1950's to early 60's you used to be able to fly from Ferryfield Airport, near Lydd to Le Touquet in France and take your car with you, a service that was part of Silver City Airlines. It was featured in the Morecombe and Wise film "That Riviera Touch"
The James Bond movie ‘Goldfinger’ used a modified DC-4 used in Cross Channel service: ‘The aircraft (which has a profile similar to a Boeing 747) that transports Goldfinger and his car out of England is actually an Aviation Traders ATL-98 Carvair. This was a heavily modified Douglas DC-4. The 747 didn't make its first flight until 1969, but the Carvair entered service in 1962 (two years before this movie). The flight number for the flight in the movie was British United Air Ferry Flight VS 400 to Geneva, Switzerland. The airport scene in the UK, is what would become London Southend Airport, the map location also matches its location in Essex, England.’
Glad to see a video of the C-5. My Great Grandfather designed the Tail of it! (also shut up about thinking it's not true, and saying im on a roblox player, its my favorite game, and my father had told me that my great grandfather had designed the tail)
I cant believe you forgot about the B-58 Hustler conversion for passenger use, it even included a "passenger pod" on the under fuselage pylon so you can "drop off" your passengers 5 minutes or less.
I think that the C-5 Galaxy is almost the same as the Antonov An-124 and the 225 Mriya but smaller. Its basiclly the ancestors of the Antonov plane today.
These are cargo planes… I’ve traveled in them, as an air force brat. Sat up top… but had to climb a massive ladder to get to the top where the seats were. The amount of cargo this plane can carry is insane.
I had an Entex 1/144 model kit of the C-5 in the late 70s that included optional decals for a Pan Am L-500. I built the C-5 version but a having a second kit for the L-500 would have been nice.
Thank you for making these videos and keep making them. Interesting avaition that I didn't know let alone was being thought of. As for the seating I wonder how would that be like and how would they deal with the bathrooms needed? That's alot of people to carry.
I actually had the chance to see one of test bed C-5's @ Warner Robbins AFB near Atlanta in fall '68; on an ROTC field trip to Elgin AFB. Only seeing a standard AF station wagon as the chase vehicle was capable of giving it scale. It was HUGE.
What's funny I can imagine Atlas Air flying charter flights with a couple of these in a combi configuration. Pax top deck, cargo main deck. Would've been really cool to see flying either way. PS: Of note the USAF did drop a Minutemen II out of the rear, and launched it....it worked quite well. Periscope Film has a 30 minute video on it.
this is a good concept,passengers and cargo in one.The focus is make it lighter so less engine thrust is needed or alternatively,increased range or capacity with original engines.
I think it will be interesting with the 747 being phased out the only heavy lift airplanes for cargo airlift will be the Antonovs once the final 747 airframes reach the end of their service life. With the increasing volume of airlift cargo and the ever increasing efficiency of new engines I wonder if the L-500 concept could still have merit if paired with the more fuel efficient engines like the GE-9X. The large underwing space and the sturdy frame of the C-5 make it seem like an ideal candidate for the engine.
The freighter variant of the 747, the 747-8F, will be in production until 2022 and will in all likelihood be flying well into the 2050's. The 747 as a heavy lift freighter isn't going away anytime soon.
In the mid-80's Lufthansa had a version of the 747 which was part cargo and passenger. At the back there was a small window where you could see several cars loaded.
The Martin Marrietta logo you use is not for the military support company but for the construction materials company that remained after the company merged with Lockheed to become Lockheed Martin.
Also the MD12, the 4 engined plane follow up of the DC10/MD 11 , was designed for double decked 1000 passengers plane. There was also a double decked B747 design in which the hump would extend all the length. This veritable double decked would carry 1000 pax as well. Ironically, the premonition of oversized planes would not be profitable , is correct with the demise of the A800 Airbus.
The air ferry idea has been done, but I’d like to see one for long distances. If only Sealink or P&O had a fleet, we could have air ferries from Northolt to Florida, New Jersey or Australia. It could have expanded the motoring holiday.
In my fourteen years as a flight engineer on the C - 5, only one time did they use passenger seatsin the cargo compartment. None the less, the capability is there, and it does work.
The C-117 with the Qatar livery is not a commercial use aircraft, it’s a military plane that was painted to allow it to land in commercial airports. Many airports have restrictions on military planes, the paint job sidesteps this requirement.
I'm a C-5M Galaxy Loadmaster, and I don't believe the car as luggage would be a very good idea. Even with the kneeling of the aircraft, it would be hard to get most sedans and possibly some trucks over the ramp. Super cool concept though
Imagine, George, snobs like you in their Prius cars being transported to central Africa and dropped off in the wilderness, never to be heard of again.?... Really? Stereotyping folks from Oklahoma who like burgers and practical truck concepts is really the height of snobbery....do you eat veggie burgers too, and tofu maybe? And, are you running low on pantyliners...?
@@robertwilson3914 You too made a hypothetical and unlikely situation to stereotype specific people, and with the added comments in the end of your paragraph makes your statement no better than the original post. Trying to take a "practical" truck into narrow paved roads and taking a "practical" economy car to the wilderness are equally unpractical but also unlikely.
It'd be a tight squeeze, but it'd be doable. Over here in England I see people trying to drive big American imported cars - mainly the Dodge Ram 3500 and the occasional Ford Crown Victoria - down our roads, which are considerably narrower than American roads. They manage okay, but God help them when it comes to parking.
Surprising that the military haven't upgraded the engines on the C5 like they have the B-52. I'm sure there must be a more fuel efficient jet engine out there that would provide about the same thrust as the existing C5 engines
The Lockheed hangar that they show at 14:57 of this video is the Skunk Works, plant 42 , where the SR-71 , F-117 stealth fighter and , the F-35 were built. Among other well known aircraft. I live just up the street from that building 😁
@@wafflehorse1423 the military version of the one in the video is very much still in production and also there is no plans for retirement or replacement in sight i don't think.
That said, a civilian version of the L, in American flag airlines, would represent an incredible asset for Military Airlift Command. And if the pricing for shipping high value/high security items like prescription drugs in wholesale lots is kept viable, I think there is a distinct market. Imagine UPS/FedEx/DHL shipping three day air, world wide. Very unitized and machine handled loading areas would want building too. Then there is the impact these could have for a disaster relief effort, at home or abroad. FR
My understanding is the high mounted wings were to facilitate ease of cargo loading for the military. The lessened likelihood of the high mounted engines ingesting debris on semi-improved runways was probably a secondary consideration. Anyway, I really enjoy your vids and am really glad I found your channel. You'll be at 1 million subscribers before you know it.
I always thought it was because military aircraft need to be able to land on rough terrain, so the engines have more ground clearance with bouncing and rolling in the ground. Plus less chance of stuff flying into the engines when landing on soft terrain.
The high wing design is to keep the engines high enough so that when the plane kneels the nose to receive/drop off cargo. In short, were a low wing design aircraft kneel, the engines would most likely hit the ground. The other concept is that a high wing aircraft can already sit lower to the ground (to accept cargo) than a low wing design. I hope this helps explain why most cargo designed aircraft have high wing designs.
Another big killer for the Lockhead L-500 is the fact that the 747 was already guaranteed a sale even before construction started. Juan Trippe (Pam Am) told Boeing he'd buy the 747 if they could build it. Boeing responded if we build it will you promise to buy it?. Lockhead lacked a guaranteed launch customer for the L-500 and whould still need to pay for the development costs.
Interesting to note that the L-1011 TriStar was also used in commercial aviation and never lived up to its promises. Which is a complete shame because the S duct design on the tail engine was ahead of its time and ultimately the TriStar was better than the DC-10. Lockheed has since never again ventured into passenger aircraft.
Is the Lockheed C-5 Galaxy USAF Heavy Transport larger than the Convair C-99 USAF Heavy Transport? At 2:55, you mention the C-5 as flying "8,000 kilometres per hour". This would be round 5,000 mph, which would be DOUBLE that of the Lockheed SR-71 Blackbird USAF Strategic Reconnaissance Aircraft! The best experimental demonstrators for manned hypersonic flight cannot yet approach that velocity! I expect that this is a typo; that you meant its range is 8,000 km, or round 5,000 miles.
I guess the tea leaves to be read are what will air travel passengers be wanting (aside from dirt cheap prices) in the future? Will very long distance travelers settle for short range planes (1 to 3 stops; also possible changes of planes), or will they demand non-stop flights? I wonder if C-5 style planes can be more than just wide & long bins stuffed to the gills with passengers? Instead, they might provide (for a much higher cost) small cabins for most passengers, as with trains. Maybe even a full restaurant to replace down-the-aisles service. Going halfway around the world, the passengers would literally be living aboard the plane for 20+ hours. And nowadays there is the issue of whether passengers will behave themselves, also whether jets will continue to be fertile ground for hijackers. Such scenarios might incur the presence of many burley and growling air marshals sporting body armor and non-ballistic weapons, constantly patrolling. And a brig. A really big brig.
I am familiar with the C-5, living near (actually 1½ hours north of) Dover AFB and seeing them in flight. People regularly complained about the loudness of the Concorde would be virally vocal about the C-5's engines being extremely loud.
Because "Buran" system was canceled, and RFascists agents in UA government tried to bankrupt ANtonov. It's need only 300 000 000 $ to finish second AN-225.
Newer finished because of Ukraine cant afford it by itself - too expensive. And on other end - the factory on Ukraine was just assembling facility, all that parts for AN 225 was produced by bunch of factories on many areas on USSR. As soon as USsR fall aparts when a lot of things goes wrong. But it's wasnt too bad actualy, if USSR didnt fall apart when too much crazy military staff would be placed on space orbit, and "Star Wars" become not just fantastic movie but very ugly reality.
It could've been feasible of transporting *electric cars* with passengers, which wasn't a concept to consider back then, making these *air cargo* an *Air ANYGO* (label logo), being able to morph to any storage within its dimensions, is what lacked in services. From taking just people, or with furniture/supplies or even cars and vans, up to some truck & trailers, all the way to elongated drop hatches, to belly deploy, a full STARSHIP.👀😲😱
As pointed out there is one error near the end of the video. I call the other Lockheed Starlifter civil version the L-200 but it is in fact ** *the L-300* . Forgive me please.
AND - Mach 0.75 isn't 8000km per hour (hyperloop in the sky lol) - MY BAD! sorry :)
Ok
I don't think you meant to convert mach 0.75 to "eight thousand kilometers per hour". ;)
i always wondered why millitary dont operate airlines and shipping lines to have all the equipment in ready condition at no cost
Lockheed : That speed, its a good idea, lets make it happen
Lockheeds Most successful plane to me is. The Black Bird
The best way to start a lazy sunday: One of your videos
Yes
That's what I'm doin right now lol
Same here XD
I've flown in a C-5 coming back from a TDY, in the top section above the main cargo area. It was the BEST flight experience I have ever had, the seats were like sitting first class, so much room. Slept like a champ!
Was it weird flying backwards ? I worked on C-5s for 6 years. Never flew in one. Flew sideways in a C-17 C-141 and C-130
@@insylem only the takeoff was kind of weird at first, but used to it shortly after wheels were off the ground, the rest of the flight was awesome! I'd fly top of a C-5 over a C-17 any time, flown C-17 at least 4 times, maybe more.
There is a certain irony in that the 747 design started out as an alternative to the C-5 cargo plane. When the C5 won the competition, Boeing looked for an alternate use for the design. They moved from a high wing to a low wing, and the rest is history.
Nice!
There is another one that says is was being planned as an air airplane carrier.
The 747 was designed around the container. The reason it has that teardrop shape is to create the space to shove in shipping containers as they were taking off massively at the time.
Today while it is sometimes done usually containers don't contain time sensitive goods and the all steel boxes really cut into the carrying capacity.
Another plane that has come and gone was the bristol something. You could take your car with you if you wanted. It was a fully functional airline that operated somewhere in the south of UK. Don't know why this airline went but it worked on a schedule for years.
@@VictorRodriguez-cg1kg IIRC, it was planned as cargo, switched to passenger, and then years later someone thought "What if this was an aircraft carrier?. In that order
*aircraft salesman slaps the roof of the plane*
"This bad boy can fit so many Nissan Leaf in it"
missed opportunity to say toyota corollas
How about Smart Cars?
That's one heck of a tall sales man.
@@B-17G_Flying_Fortress sales man with very tall step ladder
@@Andrea-bc6wl how about peel p 50’s?
I flew in a C5 once from Canada to Germany. In the cargo hold there were 2 recon tanks and several helicopters. Absolutely breath-taking scale of things! Only problem with the passenger modules is, you are flyng backwards, i.e. you are facing the back of the plane.
And no (or very little) windows!
It’s safer sitting backwards. I wish they had seats facing backwards as an option more.
I live near a base they land and take off from, when they start screeching when they're coming in for a landing it always sounds like a planes about to hit the house lmao
Fly on one once, and you'll hate flying commercial even more!
Actually, there is a built-in passenger compartment that you have to climb a ladder to access. It accommodates 56 people in forward-facing airline-style seats upstairs just in front of the empinaige (tail section). I'm not sure if it is uniformly configured this way in every aircraft. Apparently, it was designed to make good use of otherwise unusable space required by the airframe.
Minor nitpick at 3:09, you have the Lockheed Martin logo on the screen even though Lockheed and Martin Manetta would not merge until March 1995....
That Qatari C-17 at 16:20 isn't actually part of Qatar Airways. It is a Qatari Air Force Jet that is operated as part of the Qatar Amiri Flight, a VIP airline operated by the Government of Qatar. Their aircraft are painted in the regular Qatar Airways livery. When you look close at the C-17 in other pictures, you will notice that the roundel of the Qatar Air Force is painted on the wing.
Who uses that VIP airline? Just government officials?
"they ended up going with Lockheed's design because it was the cheapest of the three"
surprising for the us military
It wasn't the cheapest once operational costs are considered.
It was a has guzzler.
That's why carriers did not order any.
@@Zomby_Woof
Yep you just stated a big fact! 👍
I was a college student in the early 1970's. While visiting Berkeley with my college buddy, I was able to meet with cousin "John" out at Travis airbase (near Sacramento). Just so happened John was chief instructor pilot for the C-5, and he invited us to see inside one of them. Amazing experience. And if you see TH-cam videos of the thing taking off, the engines make a unique "growl" at full tilt.
Imagine being a passenger on the L-500 with the TF-39 engines
Demonic roar let's goooooooo
I live near Westover AFB. A C-5 base. You could hear them in surrounding towns. Now with the upgrade you see them, don't really hear them.
I flew from Dover AFB to NAS Rota on a C-5 with my family back in 1998. Loooong overnight flight. I remember the lack of windows and rear-facing seats more than the noise. The boarding stairs going up to the aft fuselage were exhausting (I was carrying my daughter and a car seat slung over my shoulder). Overall, it was a great experience (although, _any_ free tranatlantic flight is a great experience).
What about antonov 225 engines????
Flew in one from pope afb in north Carolina to Panama back in October 87. We were issued ear protection.
Airbus, boeing, and antonov be like :
*Intense sweating*
A military aircraft isn't comparable in financial economy to a civilian one, so they don't have to fear anything.
There's a reason airlines usually never use aircraft originally made for military, done special cases (like Antonov Airlines for bulky cargo) excepted
Antonov: so... we need to make more AN-225
@@AnComZharptitza last I heard a Chinese state owned company was going to build them under license, but that was a pre-pandemic plan
@@MrTaxiRob AN-225? yeah, I dont think so, theres only 2 in existence, its the biggest plane ever, only one has ever flown. only russia and ukraine have them, ukraine's is the one that never flew, maybe you mean the 124?
@@AnComZharptitza no dude, I'm not mistaken, I'm not making it up, but that doesn't mean it will actually be built, just that someone bought the rights to develop it further and possibly build passenger versions. I personally don't think there's a market for that, but I'd buy a ticket just for the experience if I could. It's the most beautiful thing that's ever flown IMO, like a 1970 Lincoln Continental in the sky.
So, it's an air ferry. I recall reading about air ferries being popular in the UK between the 60s and the 80s.
What airplane was transporting cars during that time period? You mean hovercraft?
@@bftjoe Look up "British United Air Ferries
", it's interesting. They operated planes that transported cars between mainland UK, France, Belgium, the Netherlands and the Channel Islands.
@@materiagrezza9331 The last car ferry operated in 1977 not the 80s. Not sure how popular something can be when they only had a handful of airplanes and stopped offering ferry service.
@@alpiekaar It was the Bristol Freighter.
I remember seeing those when I was a kid, in airline magazines.
Two slight note about the troop capacity, yes there is a specific troop compartment that can carry 75 pax, but there is also a courier compartment at the rear of the flight deck which can carry a few more. In addition to that it can (though generally doesnt) have troop seating and comfort(toilet) pallets loaded into the cargo area increasing the capacity that way.
8000 kph? Dang..... That's fast!!
Ha ha!
@@TheMrPeteChannel lol typo
🤣😂🤣
Mach 7
SR 71 didn't reach that number
Imagine being in one of these doing 8000kmh.
😁
had 2 back up 2 make sure I got that right!!
It isn’t 800 kph. It’s a very bad mistake.
THE C-5 GALAXY IS MY MOST FAVORITE AIRCRAFT EVER!!!! (THE C-5A especially, as it had those AWESOME TF-39 ENGINES!!!! Imagine passenger. THAT WOULD BE INSANE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Ya me to :D xD 👍
Yep I flew one while in the service. 4 LMTVs (trucks) 2 uh60 helicopters, 4 crates of supplies downstairs and a company of infantry upstairs. It's big!!!
The only military aircraft that comes to mind having somewhat successfully made the jump to civilian life might be the Tupolev TU-114, which was based on the TU-95 bomber. Although, it wasn’t a direct conversion as the wings had to be lowered and the fuselage enlarged to become an airliner
C-130 saw some marginal success as the L-100
You deserve more views and subscribers.
It's great to see the Lockheed L-500 get a good amount of attention. Great job. And by the way, would you like to do a video of Boeing's mid-wing double decker twin jet patent in the future? Because I think that would quite fun to watch as well. Don't you agree?
The C-5 military version has a passenger compartment isolated from the flight deck aft, above the cargo deck. It's accessed by its own ladder and that is where there are permanent seats for 73 passengers and two crew.
The aircraft is configurable with airline type seats on pallets that rolled in and locked into the cargo rails. It's been too many years now and I can't remember exactly how many seats it is but I think it's something around 250.
I never flew a mission that use them.
I recall the September 1969 issue of National Geographic which had an article on transportation. In it there was an artists rendition of a civilian version of the C-5 Galaxy set up to transport automobiles.
I remember one of these taking off at an air show in the early 90’s when they were showing off the f117 and b2 which were both relatively quiet than that beast came out and was incredibly loud and massive! It’s almost unbelievable to see something that big take off and fly. The blue angles were there but the star of the show was def the f14 aerial show and bow at the end.
As a person who lived very close to a C5 base , I can tell toy that they r not load, they r deafening!!
My dad had a 1969 Corvair Monza in Hawaii. He loved that car... Maybe I loved it more than he did, but if the L-500 existed then he would have had that car shipped to Texas instead of enduring its rather poor gas mileage, as the engine was setup for weekend racing. Still that plane would have changed so much of the world, not just my little corner.
“I can't see it coming under fire in Detroit “ Sir, living in Michigan I take offense to that statement. Of course it would come under fire! Great video friend
Hahah right on!
Back in the 1950's to early 60's you used to be able to fly from Ferryfield Airport, near Lydd to Le Touquet in France and take your car with you, a service that was part of Silver City Airlines. It was featured in the Morecombe and Wise film "That Riviera Touch"
The James Bond movie ‘Goldfinger’ used a modified DC-4 used in Cross Channel service: ‘The aircraft (which has a profile similar to a Boeing 747) that transports Goldfinger and his car out of England is actually an Aviation Traders ATL-98 Carvair. This was a heavily modified Douglas DC-4. The 747 didn't make its first flight until 1969, but the Carvair entered service in 1962 (two years before this movie). The flight number for the flight in the movie was British United Air Ferry Flight VS 400 to Geneva, Switzerland. The airport scene in the UK, is what would become London Southend Airport, the map location also matches its location in Essex, England.’
The Tupolev TU-114 was an airliner that was basically a modified TU-95 bomber. The TU-114 will always be one of my favorite planes
Man this was well.made with lottalove. I'm a subscriber and you should get more subscribers. This is well made indeed. Thank you.
Glad to see a video of the C-5. My Great Grandfather designed the Tail of it!
(also shut up about thinking it's not true, and saying im on a roblox player, its my favorite game, and my father had told me that my great grandfather had designed the tail)
Off course he did...
Why you lying, why you always lying, just stop friggin lying 🤥
Sure a Roblox playe
@@deakksyy ok? thats because its my favorite game, my dad had told me that my great grandfather had designed the tail
@@EFFEZE idiot it's true, maybe read the comment again
My dad was in the air force and when he transferred from the Philippines to the mainland our car (VW Beatle) was transported over by C5.
I cant believe you forgot about the B-58 Hustler conversion for passenger use, it even included a "passenger pod" on the under fuselage pylon so you can "drop off" your passengers 5 minutes or less.
I didn’t “forget” haha I need to do a whole video about it. If something is clearly missing then obviously I’m going to cover it
B-58 shown at 15:37.
I think that the C-5 Galaxy is almost the same as the Antonov An-124 and the 225 Mriya but smaller. Its basiclly the ancestors of the Antonov plane today.
These are cargo planes… I’ve traveled in them, as an air force brat. Sat up top… but had to climb a massive ladder to get to the top where the seats were. The amount of cargo this plane can carry is insane.
Talking with my mom, McChord Airforce Base could handle and did handle C-5s. Mom loaded them and dad worked on them when the C-5 was at McChord.
Love the C-5!
Amazing videos man, really enjoying them lately, animations are amazing, your way of saying evrything is so good, just really awesome vids
You truly create amazing content and I wish you the best of success by all means.
Just wanted to say that I just came across your channel and it’s great!
I had an Entex 1/144 model kit of the C-5 in the late 70s that included optional decals for a Pan Am L-500. I built the C-5 version but a having a second kit for the L-500 would have been nice.
Thank you for making these videos and keep making them. Interesting avaition that I didn't know let alone was being thought of. As for the seating I wonder how would that be like and how would they deal with the bathrooms needed? That's alot of people to carry.
I actually had the chance to see one of test bed C-5's @ Warner Robbins AFB near Atlanta in fall '68; on an ROTC field trip to Elgin AFB. Only seeing a standard AF station wagon as the chase vehicle was capable of giving it scale. It was HUGE.
I think you might have meant Dobbins AFB in Marietta, It is adjacent to the Lockheed Martin plant.
I literally got so shook when you said "8 thousand kmph" so casually and then realized it was a mistake 😂
What's funny I can imagine Atlas Air flying charter flights with a couple of these in a combi configuration. Pax top deck, cargo main deck.
Would've been really cool to see flying either way.
PS: Of note the USAF did drop a Minutemen II out of the rear, and launched it....it worked quite well. Periscope Film has a 30 minute video on it.
Not only it would be a 747 killer, it would be a A380 killer
this is a good concept,passengers and cargo in one.The focus is make it lighter so less engine thrust is needed or alternatively,increased range or capacity with original engines.
I think it will be interesting with the 747 being phased out the only heavy lift airplanes for cargo airlift will be the Antonovs once the final 747 airframes reach the end of their service life.
With the increasing volume of airlift cargo and the ever increasing efficiency of new engines I wonder if the L-500 concept could still have merit if paired with the more fuel efficient engines like the GE-9X. The large underwing space and the sturdy frame of the C-5 make it seem like an ideal candidate for the engine.
The freighter variant of the 747, the 747-8F, will be in production until 2022 and will in all likelihood be flying well into the 2050's. The 747 as a heavy lift freighter isn't going away anytime soon.
I rode on a C5 to Saudi Arabia. It took 5 days because it broke 5 times. They are static displays that fly occasionally.
The "fly to Europe and bring the car" idea isn't that outlandish, among others KLM used a 747-variant that could carry cargo and freight.
In the mid-80's Lufthansa had a version of the 747 which was part cargo and passenger. At the back there was a small window where you could see several cars loaded.
A combi a lot of aircraft could have that configuration
For of all sad words of tongue or pen, The saddest are these: "It might have been!"
I remember that it was a contest between a Lockheed plane and a Boeing plane.
The Martin Marrietta logo you use is not for the military support company but for the construction materials company that remained after the company merged with Lockheed to become Lockheed Martin.
I came here to say this as well. We use them for dolomite for glass making.
Found this channel and no explanation needed as why I subscribed.
Your videos are awesome!
Well done!
17:01 high wing design also makes engine maintenance more difficult
Ah yes... 8000 kph.... How nice it have been to fly in a airliner that quick
I had to rewind the vid to make sure I wasn't hearing things that weren't there haha
Also the MD12, the 4 engined plane follow up of the DC10/MD 11 , was designed for double decked 1000 passengers plane.
There was also a double decked B747 design in which the hump would extend all the length. This veritable double decked would carry 1000 pax as well.
Ironically, the premonition of oversized planes would not be profitable , is correct with the demise of the A800 Airbus.
*Ah yes,Lockheed 747.*
Where in the world would you land that monster? It would have been mind-blowingly huge!
Haha would have to redo airports! Like with the a380
The air ferry idea has been done, but I’d like to see one for long distances. If only Sealink or P&O had a fleet, we could have air ferries from Northolt to Florida, New Jersey or Australia. It could have expanded the motoring holiday.
In my fourteen years as a flight engineer on the C - 5, only one time did they use passenger seatsin the cargo compartment. None the less, the capability is there, and it does work.
The C-117 with the Qatar livery is not a commercial use aircraft, it’s a military plane that was painted to allow it to land in commercial airports. Many airports have restrictions on military planes, the paint job sidesteps this requirement.
thats fantastic! yes i was aware it wasn't a civil plane, but wasn't sure why it was Qatar livery.
I'm a C-5M Galaxy Loadmaster, and I don't believe the car as luggage would be a very good idea. Even with the kneeling of the aircraft, it would be hard to get most sedans and possibly some trucks over the ramp. Super cool concept though
Imagine some Oklahoma burger head has his F150 transported to the narrow streets of Italiy for a vacation
Imagine, George, snobs like you in their Prius cars being transported to central Africa and dropped off in the wilderness, never to be heard of again.?... Really? Stereotyping folks from Oklahoma who like burgers and practical truck concepts is really the height of snobbery....do you eat veggie burgers too, and tofu maybe? And, are you running low on pantyliners...?
@@robertwilson3914 You too made a hypothetical and unlikely situation to stereotype specific people, and with the added comments in the end of your paragraph makes your statement no better than the original post. Trying to take a "practical" truck into narrow paved roads and taking a "practical" economy car to the wilderness are equally unpractical but also unlikely.
It'd be a tight squeeze, but it'd be doable. Over here in England I see people trying to drive big American imported cars - mainly the Dodge Ram 3500 and the occasional Ford Crown Victoria - down our roads, which are considerably narrower than American roads. They manage okay, but God help them when it comes to parking.
@michyy17 Nah, I live in Panama, and I agree with everything that Robert said. The guy was talking like a pompous ass.
I stand my ground.
More passengers ! ! ! More departed souls ! ! ! !300 is enough number to memorise love ones ! ! !
I’ve been a C5 mechanic for almost 14 years and I never knew this existed. Thanks for this vid man!
Lockheed be like: “what if we did something really expensive”
Now I wanna buy a C-5
Surprising that the military haven't upgraded the engines on the C5 like they have the B-52. I'm sure there must be a more fuel efficient jet engine out there that would provide about the same thrust as the existing C5 engines
They have its called the C5M Super Galaxy with F138-GE-100 engines which are the Military Version of the CF6-80C2-Turbofans.
The Lockheed hangar that they show at 14:57 of this video is the Skunk Works, plant 42 , where the SR-71 , F-117 stealth fighter and , the F-35 were built. Among other well known aircraft. I live just up the street from that building 😁
It sucks that the 747,a380,a340 are being phased out
NOW HERE'S HOW THE L500 CAN STILL WIN!
Yeah but it was a military cargo and the military retired it
@@wafflehorse1423 They did?, cause last time I checked they had no real replacement in sight or plans to retire it.
That might be the c-5 galaxy I don’t I get them confused
@@wafflehorse1423 the military version of the one in the video is very much still in production and also there is no plans for retirement or replacement in sight i don't think.
It’s now forgotten that Boeing had a proposed C5A-the mock up is now at JBLM, WA. Taking that concept they developed the 747
That said, a civilian version of the L, in American flag airlines, would represent an incredible asset for Military Airlift Command. And if the pricing for shipping high value/high security items like prescription drugs in wholesale lots is kept viable, I think there is a distinct market. Imagine UPS/FedEx/DHL shipping three day air, world wide. Very unitized and machine handled loading areas would want building too. Then there is the impact these could have for a disaster relief effort, at home or abroad. FR
My understanding is the high mounted wings were to facilitate ease of cargo loading for the military. The lessened likelihood of the high mounted engines ingesting debris on semi-improved runways was probably a secondary consideration.
Anyway, I really enjoy your vids and am really glad I found your channel. You'll be at 1 million subscribers before you know it.
I always thought it was because military aircraft need to be able to land on rough terrain, so the engines have more ground clearance with bouncing and rolling in the ground. Plus less chance of stuff flying into the engines when landing on soft terrain.
The high wing design is to keep the engines high enough so that when the plane kneels the nose to receive/drop off cargo. In short, were a low wing design aircraft kneel, the engines would most likely hit the ground.
The other concept is that a high wing aircraft can already sit lower to the ground (to accept cargo) than a low wing design.
I hope this helps explain why most cargo designed aircraft have high wing designs.
@Chamberlain:
To be honest, I have no idea. I simply read the wing part in a book about cargo planes and repeated it here.
@@pbandj37 you are correct , I watched a Lockheed video on the production of C-5 and that was exactly the reason
Wow! 8,000 kilometers per hour. That's pretty quick.
100 - one hundred.
1000 - one thousand.
800 - eight hundred.
8000 - eight thousand.
Noticed quite a few of your videos have had a few number issues.
Thanks for helping!
Another big killer for the Lockhead L-500 is the fact that the 747 was already guaranteed a sale even before construction started. Juan Trippe (Pam Am) told Boeing he'd buy the 747 if they could build it. Boeing responded if we build it will you promise to buy it?. Lockhead lacked a guaranteed launch customer for the L-500 and whould still need to pay for the development costs.
Interesting to note that the L-1011 TriStar was also used in commercial aviation and never lived up to its promises. Which is a complete shame because the S duct design on the tail engine was ahead of its time and ultimately the TriStar was better than the DC-10. Lockheed has since never again ventured into passenger aircraft.
Is the Lockheed C-5 Galaxy USAF Heavy Transport larger than the Convair C-99 USAF Heavy Transport?
At 2:55, you mention the C-5 as flying "8,000 kilometres per hour". This would be round 5,000 mph, which would be DOUBLE that of the Lockheed SR-71 Blackbird USAF Strategic Reconnaissance Aircraft! The best experimental demonstrators for manned hypersonic flight cannot yet approach that velocity!
I expect that this is a typo; that you meant its range is 8,000 km, or round 5,000 miles.
Never gets old being on takeoff roll in FREDDY
A cargo plane similar the antonov 124 to sell to companies would be cool but a combination aircraft is somewhat excessive
Awesome Video Found And Explained
I guess the tea leaves to be read are what will air travel passengers be wanting (aside from dirt cheap prices) in the future?
Will very long distance travelers settle for short range planes (1 to 3 stops; also possible changes of planes), or will they demand non-stop flights?
I wonder if C-5 style planes can be more than just wide & long bins stuffed to the gills with passengers? Instead, they might provide (for a much higher cost) small cabins for most passengers, as with trains. Maybe even a full restaurant to replace down-the-aisles service. Going halfway around the world, the passengers would literally be living aboard the plane for 20+ hours.
And nowadays there is the issue of whether passengers will behave themselves, also whether jets will continue to be fertile ground for hijackers. Such scenarios might incur the presence of many burley and growling air marshals sporting body armor and non-ballistic weapons, constantly patrolling. And a brig. A really big brig.
Thank you for doing a great job for us .I was at paris airshow and one milatery officer told me the new c 5m can takeoff in 1500 feet .✈️🛫😇🤗🌠
Wow!! You squeezed as much ads in the video as cars in the planes!! Great effort
Thanks for supporting the channel!
Super cool video loved it
If the past doesn’t work, future will work again
8000 km/hr mentioned a few times. That’s like Mach 6 😅
yes clearly im very embrarrased
No stress. We got the gist. Any person with 2 braincells knew what you meant.
And passenger planes fly at 545 not 650.
I love your content!! Please don't end!
That was cool, I liked that. Have a great rest of the night
Regarding your question on 9:12, Gander, Newfoundland & Shannon, Ireland
Maybe you could do a video on the forgotten Chinese Shanghai Y-10?
Here's a Slogan' Look at me, I'm not like the other plane, I'm into cars xD
Great video as usual. Thank you
You should do one on the XB70 Valkyrie
I am familiar with the C-5, living near (actually 1½ hours north of) Dover AFB and seeing them in flight. People regularly complained about the loudness of the Concorde would be virally vocal about the C-5's engines being extremely loud.
Can you do a story on the ann 225, and why the second version was never finished...pretty please!
Because "Buran" system was canceled, and RFascists agents in UA government tried to bankrupt ANtonov. It's need only 300 000 000 $ to finish second AN-225.
Newer finished because of Ukraine cant afford it by itself - too expensive. And on other end - the factory on Ukraine was just assembling facility, all that parts for AN 225 was produced by bunch of factories on many areas on USSR. As soon as USsR fall aparts when a lot of things goes wrong. But it's wasnt too bad actualy, if USSR didnt fall apart when too much crazy military staff would be placed on space orbit, and "Star Wars" become not just fantastic movie but very ugly reality.
There is a problem: with the plane being a high wing design, the engines will be higher up than the 747 hence harder to reach for maintenance.
It could've been feasible of transporting *electric cars* with passengers, which wasn't a concept to consider back then, making these *air cargo* an *Air ANYGO* (label logo), being able to morph to any storage within its dimensions, is what lacked in services. From taking just people, or with furniture/supplies or even cars and vans, up to some truck & trailers, all the way to elongated drop hatches, to belly deploy, a full STARSHIP.👀😲😱
Now that I'm here, how tf do u make the 3d models for the aircraft?
If you go to the TH-cam channel Mustard, he does the same thing and he recommended skill share.
Blender :)