You know that is right! I had looked at the C5 and the like and figured that they had some aero reason for the location but aside from the structural weight needed (which has to be just enormous to keep the tail on with the possible loads that will be applied in normal flight much less in sideslips and combinations) how much do you suppose they put in for battle damage. It is the height of bad engineering to always assume that with our superiority in weapons that the landing fields will be friendly and the skies clear!

I keep seeing numbers in tons, staggers the mind. I agree about the Russian designs. We tend to go to extraordinary lengths to save an ounce, but our reliability and maintainability guys must drink too much coffee!

Those are very good points Paul. I had forgotten completely about the Antonov, I just remembered the first time I walked under the C5 tail and saw clouds blowing by underneath of it. I have been around those airplanes most of my life and still have trouble getting a mental hold of the structures involved. Aero is no problem but beams and skins, no way it can be done at those sizes.