Alfa Romeo Forums banner

1 - 9 of 9 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,761 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Mr john this is for you. We dont get much traffic thru here but from time to time a 135 or 3. I saw this this morning and thought of you. Well, first I recalled my disdain for all things related to 463L equipment but I like the lighting and that there's the old and the new. I know they're not what you flew but think you'll get a connection. FWIW this one is outta Dover. I have another one for posting this evening when I get back from an appointment.

I know, not Alfa related but for you in honor of your service. Ciao chris
 

Attachments

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
15,870 Posts
C-5, right? Interesting airplane. I wonder how it feels to fly compared to a 747, the 747 being the competitor for that military design competition.

I wonder why they flew this one in. Something special going on? How much activity is there at the base you are at?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,761 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
more familiar Mr john...

C5 yes Mr Del, a C17 is in the back ground. Next, a 747-400 Freighter I saw this afternoon. You can make out the nose in the open position. Differs from the C5 in that the C5 you can drive in one end and out the other. More flexible. The 747 can haul more tonnage but when it comes to the outsized stuff, the C5 - this one is an M - gets the nod if they can keep them flying. The deck of the C5 is basically at floor level while the 747 has its deck similar to that of the more commercial version, about mid level. ciao chris
 

Attachments

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
15,870 Posts
Yup, I know that the C-5 has a very short fatigue lifetime compared to the 747F. I guess there were many failures of the early airplanes. In fact, when it was first built, Lockheed screwed up the design of the wing, it not meeting the minimum static and fatigue test requirements, which are much less than that of the 747. The military called in Boeing to redesign the wing structure, much to Lockheed's disgust and embarrassment.

I think the 5M version is similar in cargo tonnage capability to the 747, maybe several tons more, and yes, the cargo volume is greater in the 5, but if they are afraid to fly it much, not wanting to use up the limited lifetime...mostly used for emergencies only.

To see one flying is something, though. Have been in the Russian version, An-124, used by Heavylift Cargo. Haven't seen the (two off) An-225 Russian super cargo (exBuran shuttle carrier) airplane.

Alfa stuff: Visited Alfa of Tacoma to see about getting a couple of parts, and to see how they are doing. Learned a lot about their situation. Also learned how to exactly adjust the Ferrari and Alfa 24V engine timing belt tensioner, that the internal shaft has to be exactly set so that the retention wire is clearly free to move back and forth in the through holes. Interesting. He says that he's never seen one fail except for rust forming in the open top, causing the center shaft to stick (maybe a little grease should be put there). Well, that's his experience anyway. He's never had any of the 24V cars he's timed have a timing belt skipping failure.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,977 Posts
Thanks Chris. It was a privilege to serve and be able to fly great airplanes with outstanding men, both in the ****pit and the ground maintainers. If the crew chief said the airplane was good-to-go, it was. It was personal with them. I never really appreciated it until I got older, but I'm amazed at how smart and dedicated these young guys were. 26 year old aircraft commanders with 20 year old maintainers and they were always ready and capable to put some pretty big hurt on an enemy.

WRT to the C-5, we need to remember that it was a very technologically groundbreaking aircraft for the time. Also a lot of the requirements, like rough field landing capability, was really not practical for an aircraft that size. And the requirement to carry main battle tanks was not practical either. You could never deliver enough of them in time to make a strategic or tactical difference. Roll-on, roll-off is nice, but unless you're doing it at makeshift airfields, it's not really worth the extra money for a specially designed airplane, with all the logistical tail that comes with it.

The 747 on the other hand would have made a great airlifter. Just put cheap k-loaders at forward deployed locations. Logistically, with thousands of 74's in use around the world, parts are almost always readily available, and it's know, well-proven design.

I have a couple thousand hours in 74's and it is one of my favorite airplanes. It does everything well. It was a home-run, out-out-of-the-park hit for Boeing. No bad habits, a joy to fly, and stunningly reliable given competent maintenance. As an airline pilot now, all the guys I fly with always say they wish they would have had the chance to fly the 74'. I count myself lucky to have had the chance.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
15,870 Posts
Indeed, the pilots I've met say the same thing about flying the airplane. It was amazing to be involved in the design/analysis of that airplane, with the company building the first ones in a really huge from scratch factory which was being built around the assy line at the same time.

I think that the 747 and the 777 are maybe the two airplanes where Boeing set the standard for great modern designs, both being really reliable and easy to fly.

Alas, that atmosphere and camaraderie does not exist at the company now. Just another greedy unfriendly place to work, no thanks to the present corporate leaders. McNerney intent on destroying the engineering capability of the company for short term gain and power, and R&D at an all time low, engineers being layed off, or moved to strange poorly equipped locations around the country just to break them up. Just today, McNerney threatened to move engineering and production out of the country if Congress doesn't ok the export/Import Bank. Scary dude, he came from GE and 3M and did the same damage to them, those companies now stating that it took years to recover from his costly changes.

The present leadership screwed up the 787 program so badly that I've read lately that the chances are most likely that the 787 program may never end up paying for itself in the projected lifetime of the program. It has been estimated that the total cost of the program and deferred expenses may total up to 50 billion so far. Incredible, yet no leadership heads rolled. They blamed the program failure on the in house engineers, who of course, were just following the higher up orders, or actually not being included in the design, much of it being outsourced overseas.

Oops, ranted again, but still irritated how the company my family worked for since WWII has become so soiled. However, being stingy and selfish seems to be the way of the country now, esp big business and the conservatives.

Alfa stuff today, nothing yet, but expecting some parts in the mail so I can start the 91S suspension renewal. Have decided that the used low mileage rear struts I have will go on the car while I rebuild the ones on the car now, then I will probably do the same for the front. Getting some sort of squawking sounds from the left rear area, suspect it is the shock itself, since there are no stab bar type bushings, etc. Maybe that strut is hanging up and causing the car to "wallow" some when going over speed bumps and undulations in the roadway. Either that or it is a front shock gone soft. Hard to tell when you have stiff stab bars all around.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,977 Posts
Yes. I'm afraid it's a sign of our times. Very little real leadership going on at the corporate level, and even less in the government. Even the military has been purged politically to the point that morale is plummeting. It's all about "giving the appearance" of something, rather than actually doing it.

The program management of the 787 with it's political correctness and inept leadership is painful to watch. Compare that to the program management of Joe Sutter and Malcom Stamper with the 747.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
15,870 Posts
Those guys had really big ones, betting the company on that 747 program. The history of the commercial endeavors of the company from the beginning of the jet age. Exciting to say the least. Now... leadership screw-ups with no accountability.

It's a real shame about the 787 program, as it is potentially a really great airplane, but saddled with a lack of manufacturing expertise at certain plants and cheaper poor quality subcomponents demanded from suppliers by McNerney, he being quoted as saying, if you don't meet our demands on price, you will be put on the banned from Boeing supplier list, tough cookies. Service Engineering says these el cheapo poor quality components continue to fail.

Sigh.

anyway, got to keep the Alfas running. Liked your pdf on the lights. You might include the comment I posted about being able to change the rhd version to lhd.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,977 Posts
I agree completely. I've seen it in my own company. Nobody believes anything said by senior leadership. Unfortunately, many CEOs have propelled themselves in rock star status with their narcissism and arrogance. Even when they fail, they leave with 20 million dollar severances. Some failure.

Politically, I'm afraid that they embrace the WORST of both the liberal and conservative views of the world.

Air Hitler finds out the 787 is delayed again.

 
1 - 9 of 9 Posts
Top