Talk:Lockheed C-5 Galaxy/Archive 1

Archive 1

computer issues

I see only half the plane in the picture, I am the only one? I'm using Mozilla Firefox 0.8 on Windows XP home, and default skin --AstroNomer 23:26, Jun 14, 2004 (UTC)

Doesn't work here. Safari, Mac OS X 10.2. I tried to work on it, but I don't know why it isn't working. Other tables work fine, I can't find anything wrong with this. RADICALBENDER★ 00:21, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Fine here. Safari, Mac OS X 10.3. I suspect it's a Safari bug rather than a wikip-inherent one. EddEdmondson 00:24, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

No problem in IE6 - Adrian Pingstone 07:57, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Ok in Netscape 7.0...hmmm...--AstroNomer 10:21, Jun 15, 2004 (UTC)

Weights

The weight I believe is wrong.

The loaded wegiht is actually the Maximum take-off weight. I do not know what the loaded weight is however.

So if someone could fix that. That would be awesome. Mitch Owen 02:00, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Max speed wrong

The maximum speed is listed as 571 mph and 760 km/h. These values are not equal. 571 mph is, in fact, 918.85 km/h. I'm assuming that this is the correct number and that 760 km/h is incorrect, but I'll let someone else double-check and make the edit...

Any maximum speed for the C-5 simply expressed in mph or kph is wrong. Notice the period after the previous sentence. The Speed is limited by the aerodynamic pressures exerted on the aircraft. This can be expressed in Mach or Knots Calibrated Airspeed(KCAS)which has nothing to do with how fast you are moving over the ground, it has to do with air density. The maximum speed for the C-5 is 402 KCAS or .850 Mach, Someone somewhere converted what he thought was the maximum airspeed using arbitrary conditions (teperature and pressure alttitude) to get a number that the average Joe would identify with. The C-5 normally cruises at .77 Mach, Pilots should not exceed .825 Mach, beyond .850 Mach Lockheed says things might start to come apart at an alarming rate. I've seen a ground speed in excess of 650 mph going east in the jetstream with a 200 knot tailwind and seen less than 400 mph coming home with that same wind on the nose.

Those aren't numbers derived from arbitrary conditions (or shouldn't be); that number *should* be the maximum speed at sea level in a standard atmosphere. We can debate whether an MPH or Mach number figure is more meaningful here. :)--chris.lawson 01:33, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

That's my point, Somebody chose Sea level Standard day. Arbitrary: adj. Based on or subject to individual judgment or preference. Like someone's gonna fly over 500 mph at sea level in a C-5?

.77 Mach is ~585 MPH @Sea level .825 Mach is ~628 MPH .850 is ~647mph Which "Maximum" would you like? These are the only ones available. Trying to make sense of some air show fact sheet is an exercise in serious time wasting. Watch out for those trees at sea level.  :(

It seems very reasonable, and not at all "subject to individual judgement or preference", to use a standard atmosphere for the calculations. That's how aircraft manufacturers do things, and I see no reason why we should be any different.--chris.lawson 17:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Weights

Yes, the normal (or standard) maximum takeoff weight is 769,000 pounds. During wartime or with a special waiver, that weight restriction can increase to 840,000 pounds.

I was a former C-5 Galaxy loadmaster and you can refer to my web site for confirmation...

http://www.theaviationzone.com/factsheets/c5_specs.asp

Mike Neely 1600 (CDT), 26 April 2005

Tire Weights

Um, I just saw what's below in the trivia section. There's quite obviously a problem with the math in all this, so I've deleted it from the main page 'til we can sort it out. -Lommer | ^talk 21:01, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

• The air in each tire weighs 181 pounds (82 kg). Total weight of all 28 tires is 4,214 pounds (1,911 kg). That's because the metal and rubber in each tire weighs minus 30.5 lb (−13.75 kg)!!

Weights again

There seems to be a problem with weights.

From the article:

• Empty plane: 337,937 lb
• Full fuel load: 332,500 lb
• Possible cargo: 270,000 lb
• Loaded plane: 769,000 lb
• Maximum take-off: 840,000 lb

These numbers don't add up, no matter how I twist them. If "Empty plane" corresponds to the weight of plane itself with no fuel or cargo, fully fueled and loaded plane should weigh 940,437 pounds, which is more than "maximum takeoff" number. In other words, fully loaded and fueled, C-5 will be unable to take off. This is weird but I can accept it. However, it is not clear how the number for "loaded plane" comes in. 769,000 lb is not equal to sum of any combination of numbers above.

If "Empty plane" is plane with fuel, but without cargo, it would imply that the plane without fuel weighs 337937 - 332500 = 5437 lbs, or roughly twice the weight of my car. --Itinerant1 03:29, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok here goes: The numbers aren't supposed to add up.

• Empty plane is the weight of the plane, all avionics, and any working fluids (oil, hydraulic fluid, etc).
• Full fuel load is the weight of the fuel if all tanks are filled to capacity.
• Possible cargo is the weight of cargo that the plane can structurally take while still staying within weight and balance limitations.
• Loaded plane is the total weight that the C-5 is normally restricted to taking off with.
• MTO weight is the actual capacity take-off weight that the C-5 can handle, and it is only allowed to operate between the loaded and MTO limits under a special certificate issued only in wartime or emergencies (see above)

So, why the discrepency? You nailed it yourself; the plane can't carry a full load of cargo and fuel. Thus, for maximum range (full fuel load) the plane cannot be loaded to capacity, and for maximum capacity (full cargo load) the plane can't carry as much fuel and therefore can't fly as far. This is extremely common for aircraft of all sizes. Even a small Cessna 152 can't carry a full fuel load if the two occupants are heavyset people. -User:Lommer | ^talk 19:18, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok here's a little more. Without getting overly technical, The "empty weight" (no fuel/cargo)is more like 380,000 lbs. This is an approximation since every plane has minor variations in construction as well as various modifications. This weight is the operating weight and includes emergency and other equipment that can vary based on the mission etc. Maximum peacetime weight is 769,000 lbs and emergency wartime weight is 840,000 lbs The term wartime is not necessarily accurate either. If the powers that be decide the situation warrants it, they will authorize it. This could be a national emergency such as 9/11 or disaster relief. Never saw a "special certificate", just some Generals name and a "waiver number" to cover everyone involved in case it plows off the end of the runway and hits a school bus.

c-5

In 1984, a C-5 took off with a weight of 920, 836 lbs., so I believe this is the maximum takeoff weight.

There's a big difference between *rated* MTOW and what actually worked on one occasion. The rated MTOW for an aircraft is supposed to be a reliable, reproducible number that the aircraft can be expected to accomplish under a general set of conditions.--chris.lawson 20:40, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Engine Thrust?

I'm a C5 Loadmaster, not an Engineer, but i do work with the engines, and I think the thrust is closer to 40k per engine. And yes, there is no way we could take off fully loaded with cargo and with full fuel.

I think this article needs

I think this article needs an infobox. JJ 18:36, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Language

Some anoying person keeps making this article's trivia section contain bad words, i think this page should be barred from editing...

The "bad words" are not just there for profanity's sake. Many military aircraft have nicknames as such. (i.e. the B-52 can be refered to as the BUFF, or Big-Ugly-Fat-Fucker.) You may want to take a look at Wikipedia:Profanity --KPWM_Spotter 01:55, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

That annoying person is me. Wikipedia is not censored for minors and there is a strict policy against bowdlerizing. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 01:07, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Military crews are renowned for their politeness among themselves, with nice fluffy nicknames for all of their war toys. Not. Th eproblem seems to be that the world is, rather than how you'd like it to be. Might as well get used to it. Graham 02:20, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Still, it seems a little vulgar, i guess its not the worse that's on the iternet, but my freind's kids are very interested in planes, and they shouldn't be learning language from the internet if we can help it...

While I personally agree with you about that, remember that Wikipedia is not censored for children --KPWM_Spotter 02:48, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I guess your right, but it really does seem like diffusion of social responsibility

What's wrong with you people who keep bowdlerizing this article? FRED does not stand for F-ing or F***ing or any other type of "let's pretend" word. This is the way things are-- bad language exists and is used. A lot. If you don't like it, go out and persuade every C-5 aircrew to stop calling the jet FRED. Good luck. Conn, Kit 19:48, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, I expect all of you who DO keep trying to "sanitise" this article never to use the acronyms "SNAFU" or "FUBAR" in your everyday conversation, lest you be accused of hypocrisy of the highest degree.--chris.lawson 22:55, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion - Breakdown of Variants

Just a quick suggestion. Might it be an idea to insert a new section and breakdown the C-5X variants so that the differences between them can be clearly explained? At the moment the History section contains details on the different types, but it's a bit convoluted. I found a couple of sites http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/c-5.htm and http://www.faqs.org/docs/air/avc5.html which seem to have some interesting details, but not being a subject matter expert myself I cannot comment on their validity.

Any experts out there?

--Lucanos 07:24, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

This article badly needs to be copyedited. The should be a separate Variants section per Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/page content. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 08:10, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Re-engining program

What variant of the General Electric CF6 engine is being used in the C-5M program? GlobalSecurity.org and GE say the CF6-80, but this article says the CF6-50. --rogerd 16:40, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

The C-5M program utilizes the CF6-80C2L1F version of General Electric turbofan engine in use throughout the world. The specification called for thrust reversers capable of in flight deployment to allow maximum maneuverability (descent) in situations sometimes encountered by military aircraft. The engines have been "derated" to approximately 50,000 lbs thrust. This reduction was necessitated by structural limitations of the C-5 wing. A side benefit is increased longevity of the engine.

Trivia

I have removed the trivia section; if anyone feels the need to reinsert parts of it, it can be viewed here. My rationale is very simple: Wikipedia is not a compendium of every verifiable fact in existence. For example, the equivalences of its cargo capacity to other things like golf balls is a patent sample of Original Research. If our readers really want to put the abstract numbers in more concrete terms, then let them; we are giving satisfactory information already. Ingoolemo ^talk 19:48, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• The reason this article warrants a trivia section is not to create "a compendium of every verifiable fact in existence," but because by every stretch, the C-5 is not an average airplane. For someone who does not instantly understand that a 332,500 lb. fuel capacity is huge, etc., putting this information into more easily understandable terms is to the benefit, rather than the detriment of Wikipedia's quality. Conn, Kit 01:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose the removal The Trivia section should stay in some form or annother. I found it interesting, and it made some aspects of the plane easier to understand. I do think that the section should be limited to relevant and verifiable information though. --KPWM_Spotter 02:05, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
• Support the removal. There's utterly no point in using golf balls as a unit of volume. Wow, so the C-5 can fit three tanks.....even if it can't take off with them. What's the bloody point? --Mmx1 21:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Support removal we don't need junk facts. --rogerd 21:48, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

What is currently on the page as trivia aren't "junk facts" they are simply interesting tidbits of information that don't fit elsewhere. I agree that the number of golf balls isn't relevant, but that's not there currently. Random things, such as the total length of wiring, or the aircraft's nickname don't fit in the article anywhere else, but are things that someone doing research on the aircraft could use. --KPWM_Spotter 22:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• Conditional fence-sitting: I support the trivia section, but nix the golf ball crap. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 23:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose removal with extreme prejudice until some of the above editors can demonstrate they've actually read the current trivia section, which does not repeat ANY information from elsewhere in the article and contains useful facts.--chris.lawson 01:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

C-5 Role?

The subject line states that the C-5 " replaces (and expands) the strategic airlift capacity formerly filled by the C-141 Starlifter" The first C-141 came along in 1964 and the C-5 in 1969. I hardly think the C-5 replaced the C-141! The C-141A carried approx 62,000 lbs on 10 standard pallets. Starting in the late 70's The C-141A was stretched to hold 13 standard pallets. A C-5 carries 36 pallets and as much as 270,000 lbs. On the other hand the C-17 came along in 1993, can carry 22 pallets or 160,000 lbs (not very far). If anything replaced the C-141B and expanded the strategic airlift capacity it was the C-17. With it's severly limited range, the C-17 makes a nice tactical tansport. If you want to move a lot of cargo a long way, call a C-5. During Desert Shield/Storm The C-5 fleet carried 44 percent of the cargo while comprising 12 percent of the total airlift fleet. Now that the C-17 proved what it can and can't do, the C-5 is starting to get the cash it needs to improve reliability with the C-5M program.

C-5M performance

The C-5M performance is only a prediction since it has not been flight tested yet. The maximum weights and speeds are not as of yet planned to be increased from C-5A/B numbers since these are mainly driven by airframe structural limitations.

Base Location Correction

Westover Air Base is not in New York, it's in Chicopee, Massachusetts. I live not far away and have had the opportunity to see C-5's taking off and flying overhead, going to and from Westover. Psicop 20:51, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Dead link

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://www.hq.nasa.gov/pao/History/SP-468/cover.htm%7Caccessdate=2006-04-22
  • In A-6 Intruder on Sat Jun 3 22:43:46 2006, 404 Not found
  • In A-6 Intruder on Tue Jun 6 23:30:02 2006, Socket Error: (111, 'Connection refused')
  • In C-5 Galaxy on Tue Jun 13 22:51:54 2006, 404 Not found

---

maru (talk) contribs 02:52, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

problem was the ref entry at the end of the url; a whitespace fixed it. --Mmx1 03:12, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

NOT World's largest plane

An 225 ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An-225 ) is both bigger, and carries more, I think this should be fixed up, as on the c-5 page it claims to be the biggest plane...but it isn't. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Starcraftmazter (talk • contribs) 07:32, June 21, 2006 (UTC)

The article says: "It is the largest American military transport and one of the largest military aircraft in the world", both statements are true. The article makes no claim to be the largest. --rogerd 14:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Right. 'One of the largest' means among the top ones. -Fnlayson 17:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Refueling Capable?

Which varient of the C-5 is capable of being refueled in-flight? C-5B? Where the C-5A models retrofitted and when? --TGC55 16:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

All 3 (well, 4 sorta) models have always been aerial refueling capable. Pheonix 06:12, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Sweden might buy 2

Sweden might buy 2 check my ip via whois ;)

Sweden might buy 2 we will know in about 2 weeks from today it is when the budget will be declared.

If Sweden buys 2 then america will not be the ONLY user

What is intresting is that Boeing have already started building the 2 without Sweden actually saying it will buy 2! 83.249.76.6 01:27, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

You are obviously confused with the C-17 Globemaster III, which Sweden is considering buying. The C-5 was built by Lockheed, not Boeing, and has been out of production since 1989. There is already coverage of Sweden and the C-17 in the C-17 article.--rogerd 02:11, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Doh  ;) 83.249.76.6 08:58, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Crew

I've never seen a C-5 operating with two Flight Engineers. There's a navigator station, but they don't even use them anymore. Pilot, Copilot, FE, and usually two loadtoads. And a flying crew chief if they're LUCKY. Excali 01:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

You're mistaken. The C-5 always flies with two FEs (one at the panel and one as the scanner) and missions almost always have a flying crew chief. Conn, Kit 03:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

No, he may be right. Maybe he never saw a C-5 operating with 2 FEs. Of course maybe he never saw a C-5 operating! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.20.217.134 (talk) 14:24, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

CX-HLS

Anyone have a good writeup of the CX-HLS competition? This article is hardly complete without it. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 21:40, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

• No, I need to work on that. The article really needs background info. The Global Security C-5 history page is one good place that covers that I think. Here's another page that covers it.[1] -Fnlayson 22:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

C-5M

C-5M is an official, though out-of-sequence, designation for C-5As and Bs which have undergone both the AMP and RERP upgrade programs. In light of that fact, why should the variants list say "C-5 modernization" instead of "C-5M". "Variants" is listed on WP:Air/PC as the preferred heading for such a section, and I see no reason to depart from it. - BillCJ 20:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• Argg.. nit picky change. The layout info on WP:Air/PC is stated as guidelines not requirements. Besides there are more information stuff that needs fixing here. -Fnlayson 21:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Also, the C-5M is a designation not a variant. Certaintly not a real variant considering some will be reworked Bs and others reworked As. -Fnlayson 21:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
  • You're arguing about nomenclature. What counts here is what the DoD thinks: [2]
    • OK, a new version. Just voicing some displeasure. Wasn't going to change it back on whim. -Fnlayson 22:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

There's really no difference between having "C-5A, C-5B, C-5C, C-5 Modernized" and "C-5A, C-5B, C-5C, C-5M" other than the uniformity of the latter, which is why I changed it to begin with. And I don't think wanting uniformity in the headings is being nit-picky.

Also, I assume the Air Force thinks the difference between the modernized As and Bs it not worth having separate designations. - BillCJ 22:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• Actually, Bill, once an A and B model are modernized, they are largely the same. The A models received the B wing in the 1980s. With new engines, avionics, and flight control surfaces as part of the M upgrade, what is left to be different? —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 23:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually, that was the point I was trying to make! What ever differences there are would be minor. - BillCJ 23:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
    • There are still differences. A models don't have flares, for one. I've only seen the first completely modernized C-5 once, but the ones with the amp mods are still referred to as B's or A's. 69.181.90.66 09:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
• Sorry about my fussing. You're right. It was not that big of a deal. -Fnlayson 06:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  • It's not likely the A models will get the new engines at this point. -Fnlayson 13:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Not only that, it's possible that the entire program might be scrubbed. The cost overruns are becoming ridiculous. Khakain 07:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Per this op-ed, the USAF is seriously considering not modernizing the C-5As at this point, which already average 35 years of age, and just modernizing the Bs. They would then order 50-60 C-17s to fill in the gap, as C-17s ae much in demand because of their rough-field capability. A lot of it depends on who wins the 2008 US pres elections, as a certain party is always reluctant to spend money on defense (and they control the COngress right now too, so that affect matters). - BillCJ 17:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Other issues

Looks like several parts of this article are copied right from the US AF fact sheet and Global Security page (maybe others?). Is that OK? I don't see copyright statements on either site. -Fnlayson 23:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

USAF fact sheet: OK, GlobalSecurity: not OK —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 01:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Joseph is correct, see U.S. government works --rogerd 01:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. That's what I thought. - Fnlayson 13:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Incidents and accidents

What's the difference between an incident and an accident? Maybe an incident more minor. Thanks. -Fnlayson 04:29, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

You would expect something serious in an accident like damage or total destruction of the aircraft, with injuries or fatalities to the crew. An incident will something minor like say near misses.--PremKudva^Talk 04:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• OK, I was heading that way anyhow. Thanks for clarifying. -Fnlayson 05:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

NTSB Part 830 defines "accident" with very specific wording: 49 CFR 830.2. Have a read of that.--chris.lawson 21:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I like how the incidents and accidents section is longer than the history of the plane. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.196.104.34 (talk • contribs)

• Yea, it seems the incident/accident information is more readily available to add to the article. More information should be added to the History section. -Fnlayson 21:51, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

The C-5 Galaxy that crashed recently at Dover was not caused by a thrust reverser deploying. It crashed due to crew error. The crew simply got an indication that the thrust reverser was no longer locked, not that it had actually moved, much less deployed. They reacted completely erroneously, and wound up dumping it in the field. The malfunction that occurred is somewhat common and easily correctable, and had they followed the proper procedures, the plane would have landed fine. [3]-- 66.173.242.226 09:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• The entry already says it was human error near the end of the entry. The first sentence should be reworded though. -Fnlayson 13:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I added 70-0446 incident/accident that happened 31 July 1983. The aircraft landed short of the runway (an embankment 50 feet high). So short, 3 threshold lights and the telephone poles they sat on were topped. The main landing gear, one third of the cargo floor, aft pressure, and cargo doors were ripped off. The aircraft was landing in minimums, doing a PAR approach. Cause and contibuting factors; instrumentation, inexperienced copilot, and pilot duck under when going visual in weather. -Kboughner 16:40 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Article Improvement

I think the section layout is fine now. I moved some sections so they better match other aircraft articles. Anyway, I'm trying to add info to the History section to fill in the time span. Suggestions and/or help would sure be appreciated. -Fnlayson 21:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

This article failed A-class review. However, addressing the C-5 review comments will help this article. -Fnlayson 13:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Retired aircraft

• There's a subsection in Development section for retired planes now. It seems a bit out of place there. Should this be treated like a Surviors section in other articles and be moved to later in article? -Fnlayson 02:03, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I was wondering the same thing when I renamed the main section (and thanks for catching the typo). The "Survivors" section usually covers preserved or displayed airframes, and this are just stored airframes for parts, as far as I can tell. We don't usually have that kind of info in an aircraft article, but that doesn't mean it's not noteworthy either. I OK with it in either place. - BillCJ 02:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• OK. It'll be fine where it is, unless someone gets a better idea. The fact they are tearing down and inspecting them is good reason to have it in there, I think. -Fnlayson 02:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

We might just remove the sub-heading, and tweak it just a bit for flow with the preceeding section. - BillCJ 02:15, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• OK, I went with that. -Fnlayson 02:30, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Added the one known survivor in a Museum, with ref. Maybe change the heading as "On display" or "Retired on display"... "Survivor usual is typically used for a/c out of production and or service. I may have hastely named it Survivor. LanceBarber 03:45, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Crash info not cited

Other incidents that destroyed C-5s

• May 25, 1970 -- Burned aircraft at Palmdale, Calif., during a flight test.
• Oct. 17, 1970 -- Also burned during a flight test, this time at Marietta, Ga.
• Sept. 27, 1974 -- Crashed at Clinton Municipal Airport, Okla.
• April 5, 1975 -- Crashed in Saigon, Vietnam, during Operation Babylift.
• Aug. 29, 1990 -- Crashed at Ramstein Air Base, Germany, during Operation Desert Storm.
• April 3, 2006 -- Crashed at Dover AFB

These are the 6 that are reported by the USAF. Proper citation needs to be done. I will do these six.

However, the inicidents are not cited, the remaining four '82,'83,'90, and '01 events will be deleted if they are not properly referenced. LanceBarber 01:43, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Concur. Also, the 2006 Dover crash details are pretty extensive. I think it'd b4e a good candidate to split off as an accident article. I'll be Checking with the Aviation Accident Task FOrce to see if it's warranted. - BillCJ 02:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

• If you think about it, add fact tags to the entries that don't have references. Thanks. -Fnlayson 02:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
• Bill has a good idea. Maybe the originator can. I don't have time this week, maybe next. Busy marshalling EAA's B-17 Aluminum Overcast all this week at Centennial Airport, CO. Playing with the old 'birds' is more fun than writing about them. LanceBarber 04:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Uncited statements removed.

• The C-5 is also known as "FRED" (F&%king Ridiculous Economic/Environmental Disaster) by its crews due to its reliability issues and large consumption of fuel. Originated with high initial price tag and conspicuous major problems. (Can be added back with valid citation.LanceBarber 05:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks. That used to be in the Trivia section, but trivia purge got it moved up in the article. -Fnlayson 05:20, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

My aunt flies C5s out of Dover AFB, so I could get a fully detailed description on exactly what happended if need be. She knew the pilot, and was on-base at the time. --Spitfire2170 16:27, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

That's a very kind offer to consult with your aunt, but unfortunately, that would constitute original research, and would be disallowed. However, if you aunt could point to verifiable and reliable sources, that would be most helpful. AKRadecki^Speaketh 17:13, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

High Value Asset

There might be justification for an article dealing with the general concept, but I think it's worth mentioning that the C-5 falls into this category. Some of the operational aspects of an HVA is that deadly force is authorized to protect it on the ground, it tries to stay very far from the FEBA, and is heavily escorted when it has to go "downtown", or even into the suburbs. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 08:52, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

• That's related to how Stragetic airlift works, right? Tactical airlift is within the theater and close to forward battle areas. Strategic is long range and away from battle areas. Just need a reference to add it to this stuff to the article. I can probably find something for Strategic airlift, but don't know about High Value Asset. The C-5's usage like that goes in the Operational history section, btw. -Fnlayson 17:16, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Added image

Hey guys, in the Operators section I have added an image showing a huge sign at the entrance gate of the TANG 164th Airlift Wing base at Memphis International Airport. I could park my car right next to the entrance and was not bothered at all for making photos of it. They have it in a right angle to the road, so you cannot even accidentally get something on the photo that is security related. That is a pretty good idea. I like the graphics of the sign, the three mighty planes coming in. Maybe you like it, too. doxTxob \ ^talk 00:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Larger yet weaker?

Even though the C-5 is much larger than a B-747, its engines are significantly weaker (only 190kN of thrust versus 225-275kN). This contradiction should be explained in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.83.22.105 (talk) 10:49, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

• Which specs for the C-5 are much larger than the 747? Depends on which 747 variant is used, but the length and span are only a few percent larger for the C-5. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

The C-5 used the TF39 engine, which was the first high-bypass turbofan engine to enter production, at least). The generation that followed the TF39, such as the CF6, had higher thust, and successively-improved versiojns are used one each new variant or modle of airliner such as the 747. The C-5's engines were never upgraded, thought the Replacement Engine and Reiliability Program (RERP) was designed to replece the ancient TF39s with newer model engines. - BillCJ (talk) 18:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

The largest airplane?

When Airbus came out with the A380, is the A380 larger then the C-5? The C-5 used to be the largest plane, next to the B-747, the A380 is larger then the 747, but is the A380 lager then the C-5? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.55.36.88 (talk) 21:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Could be subjective depending on what measurement you take, the C-5 is longer by nearly 8 feet but the A380 has a wider wing span (nearly 40 foot more span) and is taller (by nearly six feet). MilborneOne (talk) 21:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, OK. Which one has more sq. ft. in the interior? Does anybody know where there is specs. for the A380 or C-5?

The Antonov An-225, first flown in 1988, is larger than either the C-5 or A380 in weight, length, and wingspan. The A380 has a slightly taller tail, though, and possibly more interior space; although the Antonov has a higher payload capacity. 67.189.54.62 (talk) 23:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Image found

I've found an image that I think would help to demonstrate the massive internal size of the C-5. This image shows three CH-46s being unloaded from an C-5 at Al Asad... it's so big that it carries other aircraft! However, I didn't upload it myself because it seems that the article has plenty of images already. I'd considered replacing Image:Super Scorpio C-5 Loading.jpg or Image:C5 galaxy.jpg, but figured this was something I'd better get a consensus about first. Any objections? bahamut0013♠♣ 01:08, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

The Infobox image needs to show the entire aircraft and at a good angle. The C-5's main image follows general WP:Air practice. It is preferable for the this image to be of the aircraft in flight. I'm fine with the current one. See if you can get others to support one of those images... -Fnlayson (talk) 01:55, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

There are plenty of images here, but one more certainly won't hurt. I can see a few areas where one could be used. On a related matter, did you know the C-5 can carry submarines too? — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:49, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought you meant changing the Infobox image. I see too much of that & without discussion before. There's room for more images. Placing them near the relevant text is best though. I'm uploading some other C-5 images now as well. I agree on replacing the Super Scorpio image. The ground equipment draws attention from the C-5. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:49, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:C-5 CH-46.jpg has replaced Image:Super Scorpio C-5 Loading.jpg. I'm glad we all agreed on this; such easy consensus has been the exception rather than the rule for me lately. bahamut0013♠♣ 22:32, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I've found a new photo that may be superior: unloading a CH-53. It shows off more of the Galaxy's interior spaces, and the load is a larger aircraft. However, I noticed that File:Excavators in a C5.jpg may also do the same. What do you all think? bahamut0013^words_deeds 16:28, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

On display

I removed the section about C-5s on desplay, inserted below:

There is one known Galaxy on display:

• C-5A at Air Mobility Command Museum, Dover AFB, Delaware

I was at the museum not long ago and there is not a C-5 on display there. The AMC museum web page does not list one either. Jons63 (talk) 04:41, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

New fully modernized C-5M?

A Lockheed Martin press release and a Flight International article are saying that the "first fully modernized C-5M Super Galaxy" was delivered to the Air Force this week.[4][5] But LM finished the first C-5M in 2006.[6] The difference seems to be "fully modernized", but neither article says what that includes. Anybody have any more information on this? Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:07, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

To my knowledge, the C-5M designation only applies to C-5s that have received both the AMP and RERP upgrades. Those that have received AMP only are still called C-5As or Bs. Is it possible it's two and half years between completion/roll-out and delivery? The first examples usually undergo extensive testing and certification between the two events. Also, there could have been some further upgrading to "production C-5M" standard. - BillCJ (talk) 00:40, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

The C-5Ms completed in 2006 have been in flight testing. Yea, probably a "production standard" configuration as you say with the one this week. Wish they would make stuff like this more clear... -Fnlayson (talk) 00:47, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Incident not mentioned

A C-5 landed at Norfolk Naval Air Station on March 6, 2003 and was stranded at the end of the runway, with it's nose sticking out over I-564. Until the right kind of tractor could be brought in to back up the aircraft, it sat there for 16 hours. Landing was safe for both crew and craft. Not sure if this qualifies as an "incident", so I thought I'd mention it here before adding it to the article. The backup info (with a neat photo) is here: C-5 stuck on highway. --Trweiss (talk) 05:25, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

About the article name

Shouldn't this article be moved to "Lockheed C-5 Galaxy"? --MaxBech1975 (talk) 12:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Not at all. See the US military aircraft entry at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (aircraft). Other guidelines at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/page content. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:12, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Specifications

A couple days ago, I updated the range and speed using manufacturer's data.[7] I expect this to be newer and more accurate than the NASA Quest for performance (1985) data.[8] If anyone has newer and more accurate data from a verifiable source, please post it. -Fnlayson 01:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, not sure how to go about this, but I don't think the Mach speed conversions are correct. Should be Mach 0.79 equals 601mph, 967kmh, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.180.142.152 (talk) 21:36, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

The US Air Force fact sheet (who's link is at the bottom of the article states that the C-5 has a range of 6,320 nautical miles without air refueling. So why is it that the current range is listed as 1/3 of the actual range? Someone screwed up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.246.99.59 (talk) 06:36, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Aircraft image date error?

Great page, but I think I found one small error. The second image on the page is a C-5 (probably a "B model") with the caption "C-5 Galaxy in 1970". I don't think this is correct. The C-5 fleet was painted in the glossy white color scheme until about 1985. I believe that photo is circa 1986-88. In about 1989 they started using the all grey color scheme. - John B. (Crew Chief, C-5B #85-0006, 1985-90). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 214.3.17.37 (talk) 21:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

You may be right although it is not a B model it is the fourth C-5A 66-8306. The USAF caption says 1970 but images on the net show it in white scheme in 1981 and another in european one in 1983, it later went all grey. Might be easier to remove the date as we can not prove an exact date. MilborneOne (talk) 22:05, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Soldier of Fortune article about this aircraft

This site: [SoF] has a Soldier of Fortune article about this aircraft.Agre22 (talk) 15:14, 11 December 2009 (UTC)agre22

And that's a close copy of a Dover AFB article (not copy righted). Most intermediate details of the C-5M operational testing are probably not important enough to mention. Completing operational testing will certainly be covered. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:24, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Tail cargo space

I don't know if this is the right place to report this, but the following statement from the Design section struck me as surprising, and when I reviewed the citation for it, I didn't see any supporting information. I would think this should be removed or a better source should be provided (such as the actual volumes).

The volume of unusable space in a C-5's tail assembly (aft of the ramp) is larger than the available cargo space of a C-130 Hercules.[9]

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.107.0.77 (talk) 06:20, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

It does does dubious, and it's not in the cited source (the actual page cited - I haven't chacked all of the site's C-5 pages.) I've removed it for now. - BilCat (talk) 06:46, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

The same claim is made for the C-17's loading ramp. I may have seen that in a book as well. It seems like a trivia thing though, so no real need to have it included in the article, imo. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:45, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Recent disputed edits

Locheed built the production C-130s, and the C-141, in Marietta. It's not a far leep for then to build the C-5 there too. I question the additions for the Irving source, and ask both that the content be verified, and that the source's reliability be confirmed. WHat's posted there sounds too much like the typical political sniping that is often more based on the disgrunteld opinions of loser than on facts. - BilCat (talk) 20:59, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

And please don't remove the added tags until the dispute is settled here. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 21:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the clarify me=unclear, how could Lockheed be 3rd when only 2 where left after downselect? as the previous paragraph clearly says three companies were downselected (not one of the tags added by BilCat!). I have not touched the other tags as they clearly need to be sorted. Do we have a direct quote from Erving? Wide Body: The Triumph of the 747 doesnt sound like a neutral source! MilborneOne (talk) 21:44, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I fixed/updated that clarify tag. The sentence about Lockheed being third iswas misleading since it only tellstold part of the story. Lockheed had the lowest cost bid and that was main reason their bid was selected. I added the lowest bid part. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:03, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Call-sign

From the article: ...with the aircraft's first flight taking to the air under the call-sign "eight-three-oh-three heavy (8303H)". This is not an FAA approved callsign, and is likely a simplification and misunderstanding of the actual callsign. It is more likely that the callsign was prefixed "Lockheed" followed by the aircraft tail number (eight three zero three?) or an internally assigned flight number . Furthermore, "Heavy" is not part of the aircraft's callsign, but simply a suffix that is spoken in reference to Heavy class (Gross Takeoff Weight > 255,000 lbs) aircraft by the pilot and ATC

72.177.176.101 (talk) 17:03, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Reason for elevated cockpit

The most common reason for an elevated cockpit on a cargo plane is to allow the front cargo door to open without disturbing fthe flight controls.

This article states: In particular, all three placed the cockpit well above the cargo area so that in a crash the cargo would not crush the crew as it moved forward.

Can this be substantiated? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.173.50.18 (talk) 21:23, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

The crash thing might be a consideration, but the front loading is the main thing as you say. My sources only mention the front loading aspect, so I reworded the quoted sentence in the article. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:40, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Concur. Incidently, I think Boeing always intended for the 747 to be able to use front-loadng as a freighter, which is why its cockpit is above the main deck too. It's interesting that Airbus didn't do this with the A380, meaning all cargo versions have to be side loading as currently designed. - BilCat (talk) 13:46, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure how much the nose door helps with normal cargo when there's not a loading ramp. Nevertheless, it'd been good to have the flight deck on the 2nd level so the option for a nose door is there if needed. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:15, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Henry Durham

http://www.truth-out.org/weapons-will-never-die-we-need-stop-expensive-reincarnations-part-ii/1305296162 Henry Durham, a Lockheed production manager for the C-5A production line in Marietta, Georgia, exposed massive quality control problems, while Air Force officials looked the other way, because he feared the plane was in such bad shape that it threatened the lives of the pilots and troops that flew in it.

Worth a mention? Hcobb (talk) 01:14, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Incidents and accidents, again

This is somewhat related to the above posts, but I've noticed the Dover crash section keeps getting bigger! I've added a {{trim}} template, and I am going to try again to see if the Dover incident is worthy of it's own page. THat's a lot of info for only one source, and I wouldn't be surprised if most of it wasn't in the source. THat would mena alot of work for someone creating the new article to find more sources. I'll try to check it all out later today, and do some serious cutting. If the recent Dover additions are unsourced, I plan on warning the user who keeps adding it. - BillCJ 17:41, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder Bill. I promised to delete the 4 uncited incidents back in June. Well, how about this... here are 4 extracted incidents that can/will/should be deleted. They can be kept here until references can be found:

• Aircraft 66-8306 (C-5A) was badly damaged on September 29, 1971 in Altus AFB, OK when the #1 engine and pylon broke loose and separated from the wing during the take-off roll.
• Aircraft 70-0467 (C-5A) and 70-0466 (C-5A) were damaged in May 1982 when a tornado hit Altus (OK) AFB. The radome of 70-0467 was destroyed when it was struck by the right wingtip of the other C-5A. Both aircraft were repaired and returned to service. No injuries on the aircraft.
• Aircraft 70-0446 (C-5A) was damaged attempting to land at Shemya Air Force Base on July 31, 1983. The flight originated from Elmendorf Air Force Base as part of a routine resupply mission. None of the 12 member crew or 4 passengers were injured. Major damage was sustained to the aft main landing gear and cargo compartment floor. The aircraft was repaired and returned to service.
• Aircraft 68-0216 (C-5A) was badly damaged during a belly landing in 1983 at Travis AFB, CA. The crew had been performing touch-and-go approaches to the runway, and failed to extend the landing gear on final approach. The aircraft was rebuilt as a C-5C.
• Aircraft 70-0461 (C-5A) experienced a nose gear separation on August 16 2001 at Travis AFB, CA while attempting to take off. At the time of the incident the C-5A was assigned to the 436th Airlift Wing at Dover Air Force Base and was returning there from the Pacific theater.

Will double check before the deletion. LanceBarber 03:20, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

USAF 6 cited incidents:

• May 25, 1970 -- Burned aircraft at Palmdale, Calif., during a flight test.
• Oct. 17, 1970 -- Also burned during a flight test, this time at Marietta, Ga.
• Sept. 27, 1974 -- Crashed at Clinton Municipal Airport, Okla.
• April 5, 1975 -- Crashed in Saigon, Vietnam, during Operation Babylift.
• Aug. 29, 1990 -- Crashed at Ramstein Air Base, Germany, during Operation Desert Storm.
• Apr. 3, 2006 -- accident at Dover AFB

Recheck, to be deleted: '71, '82, 2 in '83, and '01. Added the other '83 back in above list. LanceBarber

• This looks alright to me. A lot of these are minor things as well. Mainly the '82 and '01 ones. -Fnlayson 19:21, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

"All 17 aboard survived, 15 with no injuries, 3 with serious." doesn't add up; 15 + 3 = 18 != 17. Does anybody know the actual figures? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.228.99.226 (talk) 16:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey just a thought on this section...shouldn't "Aircraft 68-0218 (C-5A) was involved in one of the best known C-5 accident to date." be changed to one of the worst known accidents? Seems kinda morbid to look positively at the deaths of people like that, but hey what do i know eh? --68.186.37.46 (talk) 17:24, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

"Best known" only means most widely known. What you describe applies more to famous/infamous. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:10, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The crash at Ramstein was determined to not be a faulty deployment of the thrust reverser. This needs updating.Phlatulator (talk) 18:39, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Just need a reliable reference that covers that to update. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:18, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

• someone states that the Shemya accident aircraft was returned to service with the Texas Air National Guard; deleted as this is incorrect; they fly the C-130 and have never operated the C-5. Did they perhaps mean the Reserve unit at Kelly AFB, Texas?76.114.136.174 (talk) 03:18, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Williams Field, Antarctica

Under the heading 'Operational History' there is the following statement: 'Williams Field near McMurdo Station is capable of handling C-5 aircraft, the first of which landed there in 1989.'

This is incorrect. Williams field is a compacted snow runway and is not capable of supporting wheeled aircraft. I don't believe any C5 aircraft has ever landed at Williams Field.

Also the first C5 to land in Antarctic landed on the 4th October 1989 at the ice runway. I know this because I arrived the previous day on a C-141 and returned to the ice runway on the 4th to witness the historic landing of the C5.

Regards,

Tony Oskam Base Engineer Scott Base 89/90 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.190.126.34 (talk) 12:51, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

The Williams Field indicates that there is an ice runway that is part of the Williams Field. But that is not clear by USAP's description, which says there's an "Annual Sea Ice Runway" somewhat near McMurdo Station and a "Pegasus White Ice Runway" further away. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:08, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Richard Marcinko HALO jump claim

Marcinko claimed in one of his books (Violence of Action, I think) that he once performed a HALO jump off the forward cargo ramp of a C-5 during his Team Six days. It sounded kind of dubious to me, but I still wonder if it's just part of his fictional book universe or if there might be some truth to it. Logic would dictate that the wind blowing into the aircraft would knock a man off his feet and blow him to the tail end of the craft, and I wonder if control of a C-5 in forward flight could even be maintained with the nose open, unless there's a smaller hatch on the nose I'm not aware of. Spartan198 (talk) 10:45, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

That book must be a fictional work then - because it didn't happen while in flight. There are interlocks to ensure that the front ramp does not lower nor does the nose raise while she is in-flight. Even if it did - the associated airflow would rip the plane to shreds at speed. The only way this is true is if they rolled the plane up to the edge of a cliff, parked it, opened it up and he jumped out. To my knowledge - the only base in the world this would be possible at is Anderson Air Force Base in Guam. 2ChannelGod (talk) 18:03, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

The events of the book are fiction, yes. I was just curious about that specific claim. Spartan198 (talk) 21:06, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

inaccurate statement on crash aircraft

The section on incidents and accidents states that the aircraft involved in the crash landing at Shemya in 1983 was returned to service and transferred to the Texas Air National Guard; this is incorrect as the only TANG airlift unit is the 136th Airlift Wing at Dallas which flies the C-130, they have never operated the C-5 - per the unit histories in Wikipedia articles for 136 AW, 147 FW and 149 FW. Did someone perhaps mean that the aircraft went to the Air Force Reserve unit at Kelly AFB, Texas?Bob80q (talk) 00:55, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Per WP:CIRCULAR WP cannot be used as a cite source for other WP articles. The existing information is cited externally - so unless something to the contrary is ref'd that's all there is really to go on. ((((( ((( (In Stereo) ))) ))))) (talk) 16:59, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

The WP articles cited include unit histories taken from official Air Force records, this should be considered acceptable source of reference.Bob80q (talk) 18:26, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

It's not per Wikipedia policy. Another wiki page is not considered a reliable source because it can be readily changed by users rightly and wrongly. The sources in those wiki articles can be copied over though. That's one way to get cites for the added text. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:35, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Well damn, as fanatical as you people usually are about having referenced sources for any edits to articles I dont know why a wiki article wouldnt be considered a good source of reference.Bob80q (talk) 20:45, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

We're tried to explain it. Look at the linked Wikipedia policy pages for more.. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:49, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Correction of numbers on babylift crash

I reverted the changes someone made to my edits on the numbers of those aboard the babylift aircraft. The original figure of 313 is correct, somebody needs to learn how to add.Bob80q (talk) 15:13, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I deleted the notation on this paragraph stating "not in citation given"; the reference was to verify an edit I made recently on the number of flight crew and medical crew so the information IS in the reference quoted.Bob80q (talk) 11:34, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

The web page in that reference is here. Where are the numbers this is supposed support? It lists names of crew members on board. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:45, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

you actually have to count them up, doesnt have a number breakdown on flight crew and medical crewBob80q (talk) 19:02, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Updated number of Aircraft in Service

79 aircraft in service as of 1 September 2012, since that point AMARC inventory records (www.amarcexperience.com) show all aircraft retired from the 164th Airlift Wing, Memphis (22 September, 2012 through 5 December, 2013); remaining aircraft from 105th Airlift Wing, Stewart (September, 2012); 1 aircraft from 433d Airlift Wing, Lackland (27 February, 2013). 167th Airlift Wing at Martinsburg is last remaining ANG C-5 unit with 11 aircraft (www.167aw.ang.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123371101)so this equates to a total of 70 aircraft in the inventory: AMC-28, AFRC-31, ANG-11 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:A:3200:392:4C2A:6CF4:2A53:2E96 (talk) 17:54, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/c5/

  Triggered by \bairforce-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 12:58, 3 April 2014 (UTC)