Jump to content

Three engine C-5A Galaxy


Recommended Posts

The Lockheed C-5 Galaxy is a very large aircraft that often has mechanical issues. This is expected since it's a 50-year-old jet with many systems spread across its large airframe. Luckily, USAF mechanics are skilled at fixing it. 


For example, instead of flying with a broken engine, mechanics remove it completely to reduce drag. This makes the flight easier. Taking off with only three engines on a four-engine plane requires careful control to avoid losing control on the runway. Pilots must advance two engines first, then gradually the third to maintain balance.

 

threeengineC5.jpg.1f387347344bf3ef06d890490162cd50.jpg

  • Informative 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 These would require a Permit to fly. That covers a lot of abnormal conditions  with many aircraft  types and usually applies to ferry flight only to get it repaired.  Nev

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Air France 066, following one of it's Airbus 380 lobbing an outboard engine core onto Greenland in 2017 considered the following: (courtesy of Wiki)

 

 

 

"Air France originally announced plans to ferry the aircraft back to Europe for repair, with an inoperable replacement engine installed, for reasons of weight and balance.[25] Such a flight requires special operating procedures, and thus rehearsal by the crew in a simulator.[25] That plan was revised and the aircraft was ferried back from Goose Bay Airport to Charles de Gaulle Airport[26] on 6 December 2017 using four operational engines and an Air France crew.[

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QANTAS certainly had a procedure for a 3 engine ferry on the 747's, and there was a story that they used it to recover one from Darwin during the Cyclone Tracy evacuations.

 

The inoperable engine was blanked off the same way as when carrying an extra engine underwing.

 

Ferry with essential crew only.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Deano747 said:

QANTAS certainly had a procedure for a 3 engine ferry on the 747's, and there was a story that they used it to recover one from Darwin during the Cyclone Tracy evacuations.

 

The inoperable engine was blanked off the same way as when carrying an extra engine underwing.

 

Ferry with essential crew only.

Hi Deano,

 

Probably only one of many interesting stories post Cyclone Tracy.

 

Trying to recall being in a conversation with Capt Reg Adkins (I Flew For MMA fame) many years ago when MMA, or whatever iteration followed it, introduced the BAE 146 in WA, and developed a habit of leaving passengers stranded all over the state. I understand 3 engined retrivals occurred there.

 

I find it interesting that in the Air France scenario that the three engine option was run through the simulator, but not put in practice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We had a 3 engine ferry procedure on the BAe146 when I flew it with National Jet Systems, actually used it once to get an a/c to the BNE maintenance facility.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Bennyboy320 said:

We had a 3 engine ferry procedure on the BAe146 when I flew it with National Jet Systems, actually used it once to get an a/c to the BNE maintenance facility.

I understood the 146 sometimes needed a 5th. One to carry as a spare?  

Perhaps that's why they are so quiet.:wink:

Edited by planedriver
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, planedriver said:

I understood the 146 sometimes needed a 5th. One to carry as a spare?  

Very true, the only a/c that had 5 APU’s 😂

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

LOL The 146 was four vaccuum cleaners flying in formation.

But seriously, I always wondered at the design decision that equipped such a small aircraft with four engines.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Always a few of them at Bankstown being worked on.

Popular for night freight runs during curfew hours as they are very quiet, and possibly relatively cheap to buy given their age.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, cscotthendry said:

But seriously, I always wondered at the design decision that equipped such a small aircraft with four engines.

If I remember my Performance A from many years ago, basically the second segment climb gradient of a 2 engine a/c is 2.4% & a 4 engine a/c it’s 3.0% which gives you better obstacle clearance following an engine failure at V1. Other reasons they chose 4 engines was greater redundancy plus better takeoff performance from short runways.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The design criteria behind the BAE146 was straight-out quietness, to ensure they could run U.K. to Europe and return outside noise curfews. Plus, the little vacuum cleaner engines (Avco-Lycoming ALF502's) were plentiful and cheap, being a derivative of the Lycoming T55 that powers the Chinook helicopter.

In addition, the design called for as much "off-the-shelf" componentry as possible to keep the construction and running costs down. And finally, they were designed for steep departure and arrival angles, so they could slot into tight airports in congested areas. Overall, they were a success by anyones measure, and they were produced for nearly 20 years.

 

And yes, our dear Monarch would've had his licence lifted if it wasn't for the fact he was the Queens favourite son - after he landed too fast and too high, and shat himself, and locked the wheels and wrecked the tyres with excessive braking, when he overran an airstrip at Islay, and ended up bogging his machine. The Captain got a reaming for not taking over when it was obvious Charlies landing skills were deficient. I guess he was reluctant to tell a future Monarch he was taking over.

 

ASN.FLIGHTSAFETY.ORG

A BAe-146-100, operated by the Queens Flight, was substantially damaged when it was involved in an accident at Islay-Glenegedale Airport (ILY/EGPI), United Kingdom. There were no injuries...

 

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think they had frequent reporting's of cabin air contamination.. I don't  think they were a bad plane. Charlles was high and had too much tailwind component and landed on the nosewheel obviously too fast an  airspeed as well  The approach should have been aborted early It was NEVER going to work..  Nev

  • Informative 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, facthunter said:

............... Charlles was high and had too much ..........................

............... careful what you say about the king FH - we don't want you dissapearing on us

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...