Editing Lockheed C-5 Galaxy (section)

===Into production===
The first C-5A Galaxy ([[United States military aircraft serials|serial number]] ''66-8303'') was rolled out of the manufacturing plant in [[Marietta, Georgia]], on 2 March 1968.<ref>Veronico and Dunn 2004, p. 62.</ref> On 30 June 1968, flight testing of the C-5A began with the first flight, flown by Leo Sullivan, with the [[call sign]] "eight-three-oh-three [[Wake turbulence#Hazard avoidance|heavy]]". Flight tests revealed that the aircraft exhibited a higher [[drag divergence Mach number]] than predicted by wind tunnel data. The maximum lift coefficient measured in flight with the flaps deflected 40° was higher than predicted (2.60 vs. 2.38), but was lower than predicted with the flaps deflected 25° (2.31 vs. 2.38) and with the flaps retracted (1.45 vs. 1.52).<ref name=AIAAstdy>Garrard, Wilfred C. "The Lockheed C-5 Case Study in Aircraft Design". ''AIAA Professional Study Series''.</ref>

{{Quote box |align=right |width=25% |quote=After being one of the worst-run programs, ever, in its early years, it has evolved very slowly and with great difficulty into a nearly adequate strategic airlifter that unfortunately needs in-flight refueling or a ground stop for even the most routine long-distance flights. We spent a lot of money to make it capable of operating from unfinished airstrips near the front lines, when we never needed that capability or had any intention to use it.|source= Robert F. Dorr, aviation historian<ref>Tillman 2007, p. 82.</ref>}}

Aircraft weight was a serious issue during design and development. At the time of the first flight, the weight was below the guaranteed weight, but by the time of the delivery of the 9th aircraft, had exceeded guarantees.<ref name=AIAAstdy /> In July 1969, during a fuselage upbending test, the wing failed at 128% of limit load, which is below the requirement that it sustain 150% of limit load. Changes were made to the wing, but during a test in July 1970, it failed at 125% of limit load. A passive load-reduction system, involving uprigged ailerons, was incorporated, but the maximum allowable payload was reduced from {{convert|220000|to|190000|lb|kg|abbr=on}}. At the time, a 90% probability was predicted that no more than 10% of the fleet of 79 airframes would reach their [[fatigue (material)|fatigue]] life of 19,000 hours without cracking of the wing.<ref name=AIAAstdy />

[[File:C-5 Galaxy.jpg|thumb|left|The fourth C-5A Galaxy ''66-8306'' in the 1980s ''European One'' color scheme|alt=Four-engined jet transport with dark green and gray paint scheme in-flight above clouds]]

Cost overruns and technical problems of the C-5A were the subject of a congressional investigation in 1968 and 1969.<ref>[https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=KhsqAAAAIBAJ&sjid=ISgEAAAAIBAJ&pg=6360,5240655&dq=c5a+overrun&hl=en "Plane costs suppressed, Colonel says"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160204143819/https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=KhsqAAAAIBAJ&sjid=ISgEAAAAIBAJ&pg=6360,5240655&dq=c5a+overrun&hl=en |date=4 February 2016}}. ''Milwaukee Journal'', 30 April 1969.</ref><ref>[https://www.nytimes.com/1969/11/18/archives/c5a-foe-says-pentagon-stripped-him-of-duties.html "C-5A Foe says Pentagon stripped him of duties"]. ''The New York Times'', 18 November 1969.</ref> The C-5 program has the dubious distinction of being the first development program with a $1{{nbh}}billion (equivalent to ${{inflation|US|1|1969|r=1|fmt=c}} billion today) overrun.<ref name="Irving"/><ref name="Garw">Garwood, Darrell. [https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=tB8aAAAAIBAJ&sjid=MyQEAAAAIBAJ&pg=4104,1070347&dq=galaxy+wings&hl=en "Newest Air Force planes grounded"]. ''Times-News'', 17 January 1970.</ref> Due to the C-5's troubled development, the [[United States Department of Defense|Department of Defense]] abandoned [[Total Package Procurement]].<ref>Nalty 2003, pp. 192–193.</ref> In 1969, Henry Durham raised concerns about the C-5 production process with Lockheed, his employer. Subsequently, Durham was transferred and subjected to abuse until he resigned. The [[Government Accountability Office]] substantiated some of his charges against Lockheed. Later, the [[American Ethical Union]] honored Durham with the Elliott-Black Award.<ref>[http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20064257,00.html "A Whistle-blower on the C-5A Gets a New Life"]. ''People'', 15 July 1974.</ref> The Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Management Systems, Ernest Fitzgerald, was another person whose fostering of public accountability was unwelcome.<ref name="Rice1971">{{Harvnb|Rice|1971}}</ref>

Upon completion of testing in December 1969, the first C-5A was transferred to the Transitional Training Unit at [[Altus Air Force Base]], Oklahoma. Lockheed delivered the first operational Galaxy to the [[437th Airlift Wing]], [[Charleston Air Force Base]], South Carolina, in June 1970. Due to higher than expected development costs, in 1970, public calls were made for the government to split the substantial losses that Lockheed was experiencing.<ref>[https://news.google.co.uk/newspapers?id=ojAVAAAAIBAJ&sjid=TfgDAAAAIBAJ&pg=4628,4038459&dq=c-5+cargo&hl=en "General asks U.S. to share Lockheed loss"]. ''Spokane Daily Chronicle'', 29 June 1970.</ref> Production was nearly brought to a halt in 1971 as Lockheed went through financial difficulties, due in part to the C-5 Galaxy's development, as well as a civilian jet liner, the [[Lockheed L-1011]].<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20070930044753/http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944387,00.html "New Life for TriStar"]. ''[[Time (magazine)|Time]]'', 17 May 1971. Retrieved 6 January 2007.</ref> The U.S. government gave loans to Lockheed to keep the company operational.<ref>Aspin, Les. [https://www.nytimes.com/1972/08/29/archives/the-lockheed-loan-revisited.html "The Lockheed Loan revisited"]. ''The New York Times'', 29 August 1972.</ref>

In the early 1970s, [[NASA]] considered the C-5 for the [[Shuttle Carrier Aircraft]] role, to transport the [[Space Shuttle program|Space Shuttle]] to [[Kennedy Space Center]]. However, they rejected it in favor of the [[Boeing 747]], in part due to the 747's low-wing design.<ref>Miles, Marvin. [https://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/latimes/access/603137242.html?dids=603137242:603137242&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:AI&type=historic&date=Jun+19%2C+1974&author=&pub=Los+Angeles+Times&desc=Jumbo+Jet+Will+Ferry+Space+Shuttle+Piggyback+Across+U.S.&pqatl=google "Jumbo Jet will ferry Space Shuttle Piggyback across U.S"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121103110227/http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/latimes/access/603137242.html?dids=603137242:603137242&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:AI&type=historic&date=Jun+19,+1974&author=&pub=Los+Angeles+Times&desc=Jumbo+Jet+Will+Ferry+Space+Shuttle+Piggyback+Across+U.S.&pqatl=google |date=3 November 2012}}. ''Los Angeles Times'', 19 June 1974.</ref> In contrast, the [[Soviet Union]] chose to transport its shuttles using the high-winged [[Antonov An-225 Mriya|An-225]],<ref>Goebel, Greg. {{usurped|1=[https://web.archive.org/web/20110629113925/http://vectorsite.net/avantgt.html#m3 "Antonov An-225 Mriya ('Cossack')"]}}. ''The Antonov Giants: An-22, An-124, & An-225''. vectorsite.net, 1 November 2009. Retrieved 18 June 2006.</ref> which derived from the [[Antonov An-124|An-124]], which is similar in design and function to the C-5.

During static and [[fatigue testing]], cracks were noticed in the wings of several aircraft,<ref name="Garw"/> and as a consequence, the C-5A fleet was restricted to 80% of maximum design loads. To reduce wing loading, load alleviation systems were added to the aircraft.<ref>Norton 2003, pp. 31–36.</ref> By 1980, payloads were restricted to as low as {{convert|50000|lb|kg|abbr=on}} for general cargo during peacetime operations. A $1.5&nbsp;billion program (equivalent to ${{inflation|US|1.5|1976|r=1|fmt=c}} billion today), known as H-Mod,<ref>National Research Council 1997, p. 90.</ref> to re-wing the 76 completed C-5As to restore full payload capability and service life began in 1976.<ref>Finney, John W. [https://www.nytimes.com/1975/12/15/archives/c5a-jet-repairs-to-cost-15-billion-pentagon-puts-outlay-to-fix-wing.html "C-5A jet repairs to cost 1.5 billion; Pentagon outs outlay to fix Wing Defects at 1.3 Billion as 'Overruns' continue"]. ''The New York Times'', 15 December 1975.</ref><ref>Coates, James. [https://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/chicagotribune/access/637578602.html?dids=637578602:637578602&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:AI&type=historic&date=Jan+21%2C+1982&author=&pub=Chicago+Tribune&desc=Disputed+C-5+jet+gets+Pentagon+nod&pqatl=google "Disputed C-5 jet gets Pentagon nod"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121102121554/http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/chicagotribune/access/637578602.html?dids=637578602:637578602&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:AI&type=historic&date=Jan+21,+1982&author=&pub=Chicago+Tribune&desc=Disputed+C-5+jet+gets+Pentagon+nod&pqatl=google |date=2 November 2012}}. ''Chicago Tribune'', 21 January 1982.</ref> After design and testing of the new wing design, the C-5As received their new wings from 1980 to 1987.<ref name="Norton_p53">Norton 2003, pp. 53–56.</ref><ref name = 'CBO 46'/><ref name="aviationzone">{{cite web|url=http://www.theaviationzone.com/factsheets/c5.asp|title=Lockheed C-5 Galaxy|first=Mike|last=Neely|date=3 April 2022 |publisher=theaviationzone.com}}</ref>