Talk:Lockheed C-5 Galaxy

Development of "C" version missing
Dear wikipedians, in the "Development" section the text jumps from the "B" to the "M" variant, without explaining the development process of the "C" version (changes, dates, etc.). Can anyone with access to verifiable sources please help fill this gap? Thanks, DPdH (talk) 21:10, 18 April 2016 (UTC)


 * The C-model is specially modified and really is a one-off variant. See the C section under the Variants section for more details.  -Fnlayson (talk) 23:15, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for responding. The development of C-model should be better summarized in this section, without having to jump to the "Variants" section, for ease of reading. Just an improvement suggestion, would do myself if I had access to verifiable sources. Regards, DPdH (talk) 13:25, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, but there's not enough to warrant the tag, imo. I'll work on when I can. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:28, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The text and Norton cite from the C-5C variant entry could be copied to this section and summarized (maybe 1-2 sentences). You can do this without much trouble. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:32, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot. Will try to find some free time to help with editing. Regards, DPdH (talk) 20:58, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

C-class article?
I'm surprised that this article is rated C-class due to lack of citations, as it has over a hundred inline citations for nearly all the info in it (counted only 3 "citation needed" tags). Can't find when was last assessed, but to me seems that now satisfies the criteria for B-class. Can it be reassessed? Thanks, DPdH (talk) 21:07, 19 April 2016 (UTC)


 * That was based on the amount of article text without sources at the time, not the total number of references. It should be almost fully cited for B class, imo.  The article can be reassessed at any time. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:08, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The article is almost fully cited at this time. After reading WP:BCLASS I've reassessed the article as B class. StarryGrandma (talk) 16:35, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Costs?
Per the infobox, I'm assuming the >$200M costs for the -A and -B are new build costs, whilst the ≈$100M costs for the -C and -M variants are conversion costs? Should we clarify this in some way? Andy Dingley (talk) 23:37, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lockheed C-5 Galaxy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141014202050/http://airwaysnews.com/html/museums/boeing-archives-bellevue-washington-usa/boeing-cx-hls-model-196364/19149 to http://airwaysnews.com/html/museums/boeing-archives-bellevue-washington-usa/boeing-cx-hls-model-196364/19149
 * Added tag to http://pdf.aiaa.org/preview/CDReadyMASM06_778/PV2006_856.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:36, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Replaced dead link with current location of article. StarryGrandma (talk) 03:52, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Operators
AS I read this section the Aircraft is currently only operated by Unites States Air Force Reserve Squadrons. Interesting fact if true. Wfoj3 (talk) 21:43, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Something wrong in sentence
There is something wrong in this sentence from the article, but it's so messed up that I can't fix it because I don't understand it: "Although some interest was expressed by carriers, no orders were placed for either L-500 version, due to operational costs caused by low fuel efficiency, a significant concern for a profit-making carrier, even before the oil crisis of the 1970s, keen competition from Boeing's 747, and high costs incurred by Lockheed in developing the C-5 and later, the L-1011. which led to the governmental rescue of the company.[106]" Does someone else understand it enough to fix it? ---Jhertel (talk) 08:51, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Looks like a hell of a run-on for sure - and could use some breaks, periods and pauses to catch breath. LOL.  I will take a look in a bit and see what I can come up with. Picard&#39;s Facepalm (talk) 18:21, 30 August 2021 (UTC)


 * This is the original source. I'd remove the aside about the 70s oil crisis, and probably tighten the wording some more. BilCat (talk) 21:19, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Into Production (fuselage cracks)
I would suggest that the last sentence of "Into Production" section should simply be removed. "During 1976, numerous cracks were also found in the fuselage along the upper fuselage on the centerline, aft of the refueling port, extending back to the wing. The cracks required a redesign to the hydraulic system for the visor, the front cargo entry point." I worked in C-5 Engineering for 32 years and the sentence makes no sense. The visor hydraulic system was never redesigned due to cracks in the upper fuselage. The upper fuselage cracks that I am aware of were due to use of 7079-T6 skins. The 7079 alloy was supposed to be the latest and greatest but it turned out to be a dud. There are actually a long history of cracks in the fuselage starting with cracks found on the fatigue test article. In some cases, changes were made during C-5A production but most of the cracks found simply become inspection items. Some were found fairly often on in-service aircraft and others didn't start showing up often until the aircraft were 20-30 years old. That's part of why we have fatigue test articles; to help predict where cracks may occur so that inspection knows where to look. GeorgiaAeronut (talk) 22:45, 14 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks for bringing this up. I removed the fuselage text since the cited reference does not cover it and my C-5 Warbird Tech book does not mention it either. (This book does cover the wing issues and retrofit.) Regards -Fnlayson (talk) 23:06, 14 March 2022 (UTC)