• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

Civil version of C-5

boxkite

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2006
Messages
847
Reaction score
146
I'm looking for more information on ideas of a passenger version of the C-5A. Was it the L-500? Or was the L-500 a civil cargo freighter?

The internal arrangement was shown in "Der Flieger" 1/1966.
 

Attachments

  • Lockheed (zivile Version der C-5A).gif
    Lockheed (zivile Version der C-5A).gif
    154.2 KB · Views: 1,428

Orionblamblam

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
7,909
Reaction score
1,141
Website
www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com
The L-500 was a civvie passenger plane, but this seems to be an inaccurate representation of it. The L-500 civvie plane was dimensionally the same as the regular C-5; this drawing shows it as rather tubby.
 

Jemiba

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
8,225
Reaction score
932
According to the FlugRevue 2/69, the L-500 was a civil cargo version.
 

Attachments

  • L-500.JPG
    L-500.JPG
    22.6 KB · Views: 1,092

fightingirish

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2006
Messages
2,379
Reaction score
687
I remember a concept from 70's, which shows a civil C-5 (L-500) loaded with passengers containers. The passengers boarded the containers at the terminal. Then the containers where transported and loaded through the front nose into the aircraft on the tarmac.
 

Jemiba

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
8,225
Reaction score
932
An automated terminal is shown in the mentioned FlugRevue, too. The drawing
seems to come directly from Lockheed and although there's no mention of a use
for passenengers, it probably could have been adopted for this purpose quite easily.
Slogan "Flying in a box" ! :D
 

Attachments

  • terminal.JPG
    terminal.JPG
    57.9 KB · Views: 1,139

hesham

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
26,695
Reaction score
3,482
My dear boxkite,

For the Lockheed L-500-114MF it was intended as commercial freighter/
transport aircraft project,which would have had JT9D engines,a longer
cargo hold and increased weight.
Old information from Internet the L-500 passenger version was designed
to compete Boing-747,but I donn't remember the site now.
 

Sentinel Chicken

American 71 Heavy, contact departure 126.47
Joined
Jan 17, 2006
Messages
590
Reaction score
58
Website
theavgeeks.com
I seem to recall a model kit from the 1970s (Entex 1/144, perhaps) that included in its C-5 Galaxy kit decals for a Pan Am civil version. Anyone got pictures of that kit box top?
 

Michel Van

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
4,654
Reaction score
683
Some Info to passengers containers concept for C-5

the German company Krupp concept.
each container take 72 person in it (plus they Luggage)
8 Container are Push in C-5 true open nose in two rows
in total 576 passengers.

the major Idea is to take 576 passengers fast from Terminal to Aircraft.
(and make only little modification at the C-5 ?)

soucre
German Book
"Verkehr" by Herman Schreiber
216 and 217 Grafik, small text on page 217.
 

jstar

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Oct 12, 2007
Messages
179
Reaction score
77
Here ya' go: The Entex L-500 'Worlds largest airliner' in 1/144 scale. A rebox of the Entex C-5 with decals for Pan Am and USAF.

http://www.oldmodelkits.com/index.php?detail=6721&page=87

(would have included the picture, but haven't figured out how to do that yet)
 

Just call me Ray

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
676
Reaction score
10
jstar said:
Here ya' go: The Entex L-500 'Worlds largest airliner' in 1/144 scale. A rebox of the Entex C-5 with decals for Pan Am and USAF.

http://www.oldmodelkits.com/index.php?detail=6721&page=87

(would have included the picture, but haven't figured out how to do that yet)

$185?!?!?! :eek:
 

flateric

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
9,045
Reaction score
871
Ordinary MAC C-5s from Entex as well as Testors re-boxing are going as high as about 75-100 USD at eBay (if you're lucky enough to find one)
 

overscan (PaulMM)

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
12,362
Reaction score
3,395
Lockheed L-500 model. Note the apparent low bypass ratio engines.

Source:

http://members.chello.nl/m.waterloo/matthys_verkuyl_models.html
 

Attachments

  • verkuyl_l-500-galaxy.jpg
    verkuyl_l-500-galaxy.jpg
    56.2 KB · Views: 738

Apophenia

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2007
Messages
2,588
Reaction score
889
Further to Hesham's mention of the L-500-114MF.

Flight International 8 August 1968 (No 3100, Vol 94) pg.199
http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1968/1968%20-%201467.html

L-500-114MF (civil C-5A), undercarriage reduced to 16 mainwheels (from 24).

Ramp weight 833,600 lb, take-off gross weight 831,000 lb, 300,000 lb cargo over 2,790 nm stage.

Another source lists the C-5A's TF39-GE-1 as powerplant. I presume that means JT9D-1s.
 

Triton

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
9,719
Reaction score
501
Website
deeptowild.blogspot.com
Was there a reason why Lockheed did not continue development of the civilian L-500? Was there no interest in airlines or cargo carriers?
 

Jemiba

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
8,225
Reaction score
932
Triton said:
Was there a reason why Lockheed did not continue development of the civilian L-500? Was there no interest in airlines or cargo carriers?

Civil carriers are quite reluctant to buy modified military transports :
- A civil version of the C-17 was proposed, but seems to haven't found much interest
- How many civil C-130 are flying ?
- A handful of Transall C 160 was bought used and used as civil mail planes and a handful
are still wearing a civil livery
- A single civil Belfast is still flying, AFAIK
- The AW Argosy was used as a civil freighter in small numbers.

The only successful military type, used in the civil field, too, is the An 124 Ruslan/Condor,
I think, but that's probably another story. AFAIK, the additional weight carried by military
transports and needed for their reinforced structured makes them difficult to operate economically.

The other way round, converting a civil aircraft into a military transport seem to be easier, e.g.
the CN235/295. Or at least it is easier to sell such aircraft to defence ministers ... ;D
 

Michel Van

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
4,654
Reaction score
683
another reason was this "littel problem"

The C-5A is the original version of the C-5. From 1969 to 1973, 81 C-5As were delivered to US Air Forces bases. Due to cracks found in the wings in the mid-1970s, the cargo weight was restricted. To restore the plane's full capability, the wing structure was redesigned. A program to install new strengthened wings on 77 C-5As was conducted from 1981 to 1987. The redesigned wing made use of a new aluminum alloy that didn't exist during the original production.[16]

source
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C-5_Galaxy
 

alertken

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jan 20, 2007
Messages
598
Reaction score
167
Triton: why did Lockheed did not continue development of the civilian L-500? Losers-to-Lockheed Boeing+P&W, on the back of a 20 a/c pax order from PanAm, launched 747-100, expecting few more pax, but many civil freight orders. So Lockheed did the over-the-Rockies wide-body Triplet. Dolorously, so did Douglas, splitting the business and so destroying both Commercial Divisions.
 

Apophenia

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2007
Messages
2,588
Reaction score
889
Jemiba said:
The only successful military type, used in the civil field, too, is the An 124 Ruslan/Condor,
I think, but that's probably another story.

Jens,

I think you could add the IL-76 to that list (although the success of the IL-76TD-90VD remains to be seen). IMHO, the reason for the success of those two types is probably a combination of low acquisition costs and the willingness of post-Soviet airlines to try the out-sized/heavy cargo market (which ADB and Volgo Dneipr now all but dominate).

In other words, the L-500, MD-17/BC-17X, etc were simply too expensive for western operators unwilling to chance their arm on a niche market.
 

Jemiba

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
8,225
Reaction score
932
" think you could add the IL-76 to that list ",

yes, you're right, I think, I was thinking of the upper end of air freighters only.
But, judging the (correct) arguments about the high costs of "civilianised" western
transports, maybe one day in a future not too far away , we'll see most of this
market occupied by chinese Shaanxi Y-8, or Y-9 transports, flown by chinese, or
maybe pakistan carriers ?
 

Apophenia

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2007
Messages
2,588
Reaction score
889
The Shaanxi Y-8 with PW150s would make a good candidate (making use of relative engine commonality with Q400s). And then there's the endless rumours of Chinese An-7X derivatives ... ;D
 

Just call me Ray

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
676
Reaction score
10
Apophenia said:
IMHO, the reason for the success of those two types is probably a combination of low acquisition costs and the willingness of post-Soviet airlines to try the out-sized/heavy cargo market (which ADB and Volgo Dneipr now all but dominate).

IMHO adds to yours - ADB and Volgo Dneipr all but dominate the out-sized/heavy cargo market because they were there first, and really demand for the outsized/heavy cargo market isn't as great as people think, and ADB and Volgo Dneipr pretty much are enough to fill that demand.
 

Apophenia

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2007
Messages
2,588
Reaction score
889
Ray,

You can't say that ADB and Volga Dnepr dominate only because they were first. What about the earlier efforts of Flying Tiger Line, Slick Airways, Heavylift, etc.?

To stay with a Lockheed example, look at Slick's order for the GL-207 Super Hercules. That project failed simply because Lockheed wouldn't take the risk with only twelve orders (they expected the DOD to pay for the development -- particularly the Allison T61s). So Slick was out of luck (and Pan Am along with them).

Contrast that with TAPOiCh's response to Volga Dnepr orders for IL-76TD-90VDs. IIRC, they've built three '90VD (anticipating a run of 15-to-20 aircraft over a decade). Granted this represents less of a development risk for TAPOiCh than the GL-207 was for Lockheed. But, on the other hand, Lockheed has never had to barter to pay its power bills! I'd say that Lockheed could better afford the risk.
 

Just call me Ray

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
676
Reaction score
10
Apophenia said:
Ray,

You can't say that ADB and Volga Dnepr dominate only because they were first. What about the earlier efforts of Flying Tiger Line, Slick Airways, Heavylift, etc.?

To my knowledge, they operate nothing bigger than the L-500, save for Heavylift's one or two Belfasts, which is still hardly an Il-76.

I suppose I should've made things more clear, but I was defining "heavylift" and particularly "outsized" as something that would at least require an Il-76 if not an An-124, since that's the target market of a civilian C-17/C-5.
 

Apophenia

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2007
Messages
2,588
Reaction score
889
Just call me Ray said:
I suppose I should've made things more clear, but I was defining "heavylift" and particularly "outsized" as something that would at least require an Il-76 if not an An-124, since that's the target market of a civilian C-17/C-5.

Ah, point taken -- especiallly on the "outsized" side of the market.
 

spectre

BOOM
Joined
Jan 7, 2007
Messages
23
Reaction score
0
Jemiba said:
Triton said:
Was there a reason why Lockheed did not continue development of the civilian L-500? Was there no interest in airlines or cargo carriers?

Civil carriers are quite reluctant to buy modified military transports :

- How many civil C-130 are flying ?
There have been (118) L100s purpose built for the civilian market. This does not count the conversions of military C-130s to civilian L100s... I would say that makes it a successful product.
 

Stargazer2006

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2009
Messages
13,235
Reaction score
454
There have been many, many instances of US civilian aircraft being impressed into military service, sometimes leading a prosperous second life under the flag (the Douglas DC-3 to -6, the Lockheed Constellation, the Convair Liner, the North-American Sabreliner and of course the Boeing 707 come to mind)... But how many civilian airliners were eventually derived from US military aircraft? Not many, despite some great projects along the way...

- The Convair Model 37, a civilian version of the B-36, never came to be.
- The Lockheed Starlifter and Galaxy would have made great civilian transports as the L-200 and L-500, but these plans also backfired.
- The Republic RC-2 Rainbow, developed from the XF-12, was supposed to be a great competitor for the Constellation, but it didn't leave the drawing board.
- The McDonnell Douglas (now Boeing) C-17 could be a great civilian transport (and in fact someone recently posted a photo of a single example sold to the Middle East), but it has not been done yet.

I wonder if the fact that some aircraft like the Galaxy, Globemaster III or Starlifter are active on the USAF roster doesn't translate into a no-no for the companies to develop civilian versions, considering they represent military technology. Any thoughts on this, someone?
 

Triton

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
9,719
Reaction score
501
Website
deeptowild.blogspot.com
From "Aircraft: The Biggest Bird", Time, Friday, Jul. 12, 1968:

1,000-Passenger Potential. It might also signal a new era in civilian-passenger and freight transportation. Lockheed plans to put out a nonmilitary version of the C-5—the L-500—by 1971. In an all-passenger configuration, the L-500 could conceivably carry up to 1,000 people, which would allow airlines to slice New York-London fares as low as $75.

Initially, Lockheed plans to produce and sell the L-500 as an all-cargo plane only—but the economics should be equally dramatic. Airlines presently account for less than 1% of all North Atlantic freight traffic, but have been making encouraging inroads on ocean shipping on certain types of goods—notably clothing. The L-500's huge payload in its 121-ft.-long cargo area would enable airlines to carry freight for as little as 2¢ per ton-mile, low enough to give surface shipping a great deal of competition on a broader range of cargo.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,712157,00.html
 

Triton

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
9,719
Reaction score
501
Website
deeptowild.blogspot.com
Artist's impression of Lockheed L-500.

Glued to the top of the photograph:

RELEASE AT 6:30 AM, EST, TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 29, 1966

MARIETTA, GA: This artist's concept of what will be the world's largest commercial aircraft, the massive Lockheed L-500, was shown to members of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. Civilian counterpart of the Military Airlift Command's C-5A, now under production at the Lockheed-Georgia Company, the proposed airlifter will be able to carry 330,000 pounds of cargo at jet speeds.

Source: http://cgi.ebay.com/ARTISTIC-CONCEPT-OF-WHAT-WILL-BE-THE-WORLDS-PHOTO-1966_W0QQitemZ350305002281QQcmdZViewItemQQptZLH_DefaultDomain_0?hash=item518fce2329
 

Attachments

  • LockheedL500.JPG
    LockheedL500.JPG
    30.1 KB · Views: 705

Caravellarella

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2007
Messages
1,031
Reaction score
202
Re: Lockheed L-500 Galaxy project......

Dear Boys and Girls, here are some pictures with a caption in French of a large model of the Lockheed L-500 Galaxy "project" showing different commercial payloads......

The pictures come from the 15th September 1969 issue of Aviation Magazine International......

Terry (Caravellarella)
 

shockonlip

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jan 29, 2008
Messages
605
Reaction score
4
This car hauling C-5 brings back memories !

There was actually an effort to sell the American auto companies a fleet
of these C-5's to haul autos around. I know about this because I was born and
raised in Detroit and had an uncle who was a pilot for Pan Am earlier in
his career who eventually worked for Lockheed and was involved in this
sales effort.

As a teenager, I was invited one day down to Cobo Hall in Detroit by this
uncle to see a very neat display Lockheed put together for Ford, GM, Chrysler
and American Motors. Lots of cool stuff plus a real C-5 fuselage section that
they had to remove a section of the Cobo Hall ceiling to fit in the exhibit hall.

That sales effort did not attract any business for Lockheed but later my uncle
and a retired big GM executive, Ed Cole, worked together on another proposal
for a spanloader design to do the same thing. That never panned out either but
they were really neat concepts! Too bad the idea never took off, so to speak.
 

Caravellarella

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2007
Messages
1,031
Reaction score
202
shockonlip said:
This car hauling C-5 brings back memories !

That never panned out either but
they were really neat concepts! Too bad the idea never took off, so to speak.

Dear shockonlip, this idea was actually put into practice; at the risk of going off topic. I know that UTA bought one Boeing 747-2B5F freighter for the sole purpose of supplying Peugeot cars from France to a Nigerian production line in the very early 1980s. Another airline (I can't remember which) also used a 747-200F to take Cadillac (Allante?) bodies from the Italian manufacturer to the USA production line. All impractical these days; and of course a Boeing 747-200 had much lower operating costs and a higher payload than a Lockheed C5 Galaxy......

Terry (Caravellarella)
 

Caravellarella

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2007
Messages
1,031
Reaction score
202
shockonlip said:
Thanks Terry!

I did not know this!

Thanks Again !!

Thanks shockonlip; effectively the Boeing 747s acted as one transfer stage in the production line......
 

Triton

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
9,719
Reaction score
501
Website
deeptowild.blogspot.com

Attachments

  • 40135_3_lg.jpg
    40135_3_lg.jpg
    86.4 KB · Views: 595
  • 40135_2_lg.jpg
    40135_2_lg.jpg
    34.9 KB · Views: 70
  • 40135_5_lg.jpg
    40135_5_lg.jpg
    50.5 KB · Views: 59
  • 40135_4_lg.jpg
    40135_4_lg.jpg
    53.1 KB · Views: 39
  • 40135_7_lg.jpg
    40135_7_lg.jpg
    36.6 KB · Views: 52
  • 40135_8_lg.jpg
    40135_8_lg.jpg
    36.9 KB · Views: 64
  • 40135_6_lg.jpg
    40135_6_lg.jpg
    55.6 KB · Views: 58

Triton

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
9,719
Reaction score
501
Website
deeptowild.blogspot.com

Attachments

  • BoseVarious070.jpg
    BoseVarious070.jpg
    84.4 KB · Views: 135

alertken

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jan 20, 2007
Messages
598
Reaction score
167
Dim memory of early 747F scheme for a dozen-or-so slantways-packed Ferraris to US, even vaguely that the first order (?LH) was for just that. When PanAm turned the rejected Boeing/Pratt CX-HLS bid into 20x747, 4/1966, they, Boeing and the world thought that the modest pax market would be less than the hi-valu freight sector, but that total production run would be small. Lockheed went after the higher volume of the US domestic airbus (that's what it was called); building C-141 and C-130, designing C-5, pitching L.1011 (and, as we know know, doing blackthings) was enough, so any civil variant of C-5 was deferred. Lockheed did not, Boeing+Pratt (after much pain) did make a big wide-body work affordably, reliably.
 

Similar threads

Top