747classic From Netherlands, joined Aug 2009, 1781 posts, RR: 11 Posted (1 year 3 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 7277 times:
The first C17, named T1 and actually built by McDonnell Douglas, flew for the first time at Sept. 15 1991.
On Wednesday (April 25 2012), it finally made its last flight, into retirement at the National Museum of the U.S. Air Force, in Dayton, Ohio. The museum expects to put the C-17 on public display in its Air Park this summer.
Sinlock From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 1532 posts, RR: 3 Reply 2, posted (1 year 3 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 7219 times:
It's mostly because she it such a nonstandard aircraft and had the highest operating cost out of the whole C-17 fleet. Over the years she's had many refits and upgrades plus the rough life she lead during her flight testing days.
Saddly there isn't one of her in the "Euro" camo paint in the database 87-0025 was the only -17 to be painted it.
ContinentalFan From United States of America, joined Oct 2000, 355 posts, RR: 0 Reply 3, posted (1 year 3 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 6879 times:
Quoting Sinlock (Reply 2): Saddly there isn't one of her in the "Euro" camo paint in the database 87-0025 was the only -17 to be painted it.
Revelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 10452 posts, RR: 20 Reply 6, posted (1 year 3 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 6453 times:
Quoting Sinlock (Reply 2): It's mostly because she it such a nonstandard aircraft and had the highest operating cost out of the whole C-17 fleet. Over the years she's had many refits and upgrades plus the rough life she lead during her flight testing days.
Are there any plans to retire other early frames, or is this just a 'one-off' event?
ZANL188 From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 3247 posts, RR: 0 Reply 7, posted (1 year 3 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 6444 times:
Quoting Sinlock (Reply 2): It's mostly because she it such a nonstandard aircraft and had the highest operating cost out of the whole C-17 fleet. Over the years she's had many refits and upgrades plus the rough life she lead during her flight testing days.
Same can be said of the C-141 prototypes and they weren't retired until relatively recently....
Legal considerations provided by: Dewey, Cheatum, and Howe
KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 11708 posts, RR: 52 Reply 8, posted (1 year 3 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 6444 times:
Quoting Revelation (Reply 6): Are there any plans to retire other early frames, or is this just a 'one-off' event?
For now, this should be the only C-17 to retire. She spent her entire life as a flight test aircraft and is not at the C-17A production standard. I do believe she has fewer hours and cycles than most of her sisters. The first C-17 to retire to the DM desert might not happen for another 10 or more years. The C-141s they replaced served for almost 35-40 years.
Revelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 10452 posts, RR: 20 Reply 10, posted (1 year 3 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 6341 times:
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 8): She spent her entire life as a flight test aircraft
Thanks, I didn't realize that. The rest of the thread mentioned she wasn't standardized but somehow I thought she was being used for cargo missions and was just too much of a pain to maintain.
ZANL188 From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 3247 posts, RR: 0 Reply 11, posted (1 year 3 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 6322 times:
Quoting Revelation (Reply 10): Thanks, I didn't realize that. The rest of the thread mentioned she wasn't standardized but somehow I thought she was being used for cargo missions and was just too much of a pain to maintain.
T-1 has always been a flight test asset at Long Beach or Edwards. I'm sure C-17s will have a continuing presence at Edwards, I know they have been given a frame to test the new block number releases.
Legal considerations provided by: Dewey, Cheatum, and Howe
cmb56 From United States of America, joined Dec 2009, 206 posts, RR: 0 Reply 13, posted (1 year 3 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 5967 times:
3750 Total Time on the airframe, that less than one year for a commercial aircraft. Just how non standard does it have to be to be so expensive a replacement aircraft is less cost than an upgrade or living with the cost over time?
Revelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 10452 posts, RR: 20 Reply 14, posted (1 year 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 5905 times:
Quoting cmb56 (Reply 13): Just how non standard does it have to be to be so expensive a replacement aircraft is less cost than an upgrade or living with the cost over time?
I'm thinking it won't be replaced. The Congress has supplied the USAF with more C-17s than it wanted.
Galaxy5007 From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 586 posts, RR: 0 Reply 15, posted (1 year 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 5904 times:
T-1 was built to be a test aircraft that was originally only supposed to last 5 years. They stretched it to 21 years; so I say...Wow...awesome. It was NEVER intended to be used in active service. ALOT of ground testing has occurred with this jet; it isn't all about flight time/hours. It was the prototype C-17...most prototypes don't last as long as their production counterparts. Now adays, they try to make production aircraft right at start, and all you get is the F-35 disaster...lol. The C-5 was the same way...lets just build a bunch and see if it works...*buzzer sound* and now FRED is born. The reason the C-17 is so successful is because MD had made T-1 (and the other two test frames for that matter) for the sole purpose of perfecting the production standard. Even it was a rocky start, but the end result is what we have today.
None of the P-xxx C-17s are being retired; T-1's time is long overdue, which is the reasoning behind it's retirement. The number of modifications and structural changes that they've done with it to improve the production line has been very successful. I should note that P-121 (03-3121) has not been subjected to the same "extreme" testing as 0025 has. Most of 3121s testing involves software and minor mechanical upgrades. 3121 is expected to enter active service within the next year or two. Most likely it'll end up at Charleston, where the jet has been assigned since delivery (just possessed at Edwards the entire time).
08-8200 has been doing some testing out of Edwards for the last month or two as well. I would think as the test program wraps up, they'll just send random jets in for future testing, like they do with the KC-10 and C-5.
The C-5 may be a FRED, but once you learn the ins and outs of it, the C-5 Galaxy is a awesome plane!
ZANL188 From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 3247 posts, RR: 0 Reply 16, posted (1 year 3 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 5867 times:
Quoting Galaxy5007 (Reply 15): T-1 was built to be a test aircraft that was originally only supposed to last 5 years. They stretched it to 21 years; so I say...Wow...awesome.
Extremely unlikely that MD built the airframe to last only 5 years. In fact that would be a pretty unsmart thing to do... "Oh look this defense contractor is building aircraft that only last 5 years"... More likely the initial test program was only funded for 5 years, subsequent funding from other programs (NASA, Army, etc) then keep it going...
I agree that T-1 would never be an operational aircraft. I disagree that it's time had come and it had to go. I stand by my argument that it was a budget cut that did it in. Edwards will now have to take an operational aircraft out of service to do the testing that otherwise would have been done with T-1.
Legal considerations provided by: Dewey, Cheatum, and Howe
Humanitarian From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 83 posts, RR: 0 Reply 17, posted (1 year 3 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 5741 times:
Although T-1 has some operational limitations, they did a bunch of upgrades to the airframe in 2007. There are those that requested it for limited operational use but the USAF ignored that suggestion. At first the National Museum was not sure they wanted it and then when they did it, was supposed to be put in a building on display. Now it will sit outside on static display. What a waste.
Galaxy5007 From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 586 posts, RR: 0 Reply 18, posted (1 year 2 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 5448 times:
Quoting ZANL188 (Reply 16): Extremely unlikely that MD built the airframe to last only 5 years.
This C-17 Globemaster III (S/N 87-0025) was essentially hand-built for the sole purpose of developmental test and evaluation, with an estimated life span of approximately five years. The aircraft was periodically rebuilt and refurbished over the years and its lifespan grew from five to 21 years.
They plan on building a new hanger for several planes, to include the C-17 and a C-5A. I think it is just awaiting funding. Originally, the plan was to have the C-5A in the hanger they were going to build for the shuttle that they didn't get. The C-17 was saved from going to KDMA...so I don't call it a waste at all. Better than sitting in the desert!
The C-5 may be a FRED, but once you learn the ins and outs of it, the C-5 Galaxy is a awesome plane!
Humanitarian From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 83 posts, RR: 0 Reply 19, posted (1 year 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 5305 times:
Quoting Galaxy5007 (Reply 18): They plan on building a new hanger for several planes, to include the C-17 and a C-5A. I think it is just awaiting funding. Originally, the plan was to have the C-5A in the hanger they were going to build for the shuttle that they didn't get. The C-17 was saved from going to KDMA...so I don't call it a waste at all. Better than sitting in the desert!
T-1 will not be put into any hangar for display. They are still collecting money for the new hangar and they have since determined that T-1 and the C-5 will not fit together so T-1 is going to sit outside permanently. T-1 could be used for other legitimate purposes but the AF has ignored the idea for now.
Yeah I saw that. Still doesn't make any sense that in 1991 McDonnell Douglas would have "hand" built a large transport aircraft - for which it already had a production contract, or that they would have only intended for it to last 5 years.
Somebody fed the Museum a line or the Museum is feeding us a line. T-1 was not a proof of concept airframe.
Legal considerations provided by: Dewey, Cheatum, and Howe
ThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1063 posts, RR: 0 Reply 21, posted (1 year 2 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 5213 times:
Quoting ZANL188 (Reply 20): Yeah I saw that. Still doesn't make any sense that in 1991 McDonnell Douglas would have "hand" built a large transport aircraft - for which it already had a production contract, or that they would have only intended for it to last 5 years.
Somebody fed the Museum a line or the Museum is feeding us a line. T-1 was not a proof of concept airframe.
Not unusual for test aircraft to be hand-built; that is why often the first aircraft off the assembly line are often non-standard. It's the first time they are assembling the aircraft, and often issues that aren't caught during design are caught there, with the resulting engineering required to solve those problems.
I will also note that the C-17 has undergone a number of design changes over the years that has made earlier blocks much less capable than later blocks were; for example, Block 10 aircraft had a redesigned tail that was 20 percent lighter through eliminating 90 percent of the parts, 81 percent of the fasteners, and 70 percent of the tools needed to produce the tail. Block 11 aircraft were fitted with automatic pressurization and depressurization system. Block 13 and later aircraft had an additional wing box fuel tank that earlier versions didn't have. Block 15 aircraft have an upgraded fuel tank inert gas generating system along with navigation and safety modifications.
Humanitarian From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 83 posts, RR: 0 Reply 22, posted (1 year 2 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 5200 times:
Hand built does not mean much in the way of operational capabilities. T-1 has some limitations but none that would preclude it from being used for many non-combat airlift missions. It is an absolute waste and I hope someone steps in and takes it away from the Museum. They can have it back several years from now after it has been worn out a bit more.
Oroka From Canada, joined Dec 2006, 787 posts, RR: 0 Reply 23, posted (1 year 2 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 5173 times:
Quoting Humanitarian (Reply 22): T-1 has some limitations but none that would preclude it from being used for many non-combat airlift missions.
It was probably coming up on the time for another upgrade, money being tight, and the USAF having more C-17s than they wanted, why waste money upgrading an aircraft that is not needed. T-1 was the redhead adopted child... first one to go.
ThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1063 posts, RR: 0 Reply 24, posted (1 year 2 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 5161 times:
Quoting Oroka (Reply 23):
It was probably coming up on the time for another upgrade, money being tight, and the USAF having more C-17s than they wanted, why waste money upgrading an aircraft that is not needed. T-1 was the redhead adopted child... first one to go.
If they are testing future upgrades, they would probably want an example that closely resembles the operational examples, and T-1 is not a example that is similar to the majority of the current USAF C-17 fleet.
25 Humanitarian: There was not enough money to justify two flight test aircraft (T-1 and P-121) and T-1 did not have the latest configuration which increased sustainme
26 Galaxy5007: I'm going to still have to disagree with you on that. The aircraft exceeded it's designed limit as a test aircraft. It was planned for retirement bac
27 Humanitarian: With all due respect you are not disagreeing with me but the USAF itself. Here what they had to say about the matter in Sept 2010. There was also ano
28 cargotanker: Where do you think it should go? To an operational squadron? This plane can't hack flying a 1.5 hour test sortie every two weeks and you want to fly
29 Humanitarian: The planned reuse of that aircraft was very well thought through and does not involve using it for operational missions for the DoD or using taxpayer
Sponsor Message: 
From Netherlands, joined Aug 2009, 1781 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 3247 posts, 
From Australia, joined Feb 2005, 5430 posts, 
From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1063 posts, 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
