Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Follow-on C-17 Order  
User currently offlineN328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6485 posts, RR: 3
Posted (9 years 8 months 19 hours ago) and read 8635 times:

My understanding (from Aviation Week) was that the follow-on order for 42-56 C-17s for USAF was to be placed in the 2nd quarter of this year. It had to be done by then to prevent a line shutdown. Anyone know the progress of this? The fifth RAF C-17 was to be ordered at the same time, right?

[Edited 2005-01-22 21:59:23]


When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
88 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineBlackbird1331 From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 1893 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (9 years 8 months 18 hours ago) and read 8570 times:

I can not answer your question, but, this is a good program and I doubt it will end abruptly. I would like to see a civilian version of the C17. This is interesting because it involves the military V. private sector interests. Consider the argument that Airbus gets subsidies and Boeing does not. Did the Boeing C17 program get financial assistance? Does the US government actually own the rights to the C17?


Cameras shoot pictures. Guns shoot people. They have the guns.
User currently offlineSTT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16866 posts, RR: 51
Reply 2, posted (9 years 8 months 15 hours ago) and read 8501 times:

McGuire AFB (nearby) received their first of 13 C-17s this past fall, perhaps they will add another Wing to the McGuire fleet?.


Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
User currently offlineN328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6485 posts, RR: 3
Reply 3, posted (9 years 8 months 13 hours ago) and read 8440 times:

STT757:

Well, they will probably replace more C-141s in-place. And perhaps augment C-5As as well. However, 14 of them are destined for USSOCOM as MC-17s to replace the MC-141s. The other 42 are for AMC. Now, I don't know if the 14 USSOCOM units have been ordered yet or not, but I don't think so.

[Edited 2005-01-23 03:15:45]


When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
User currently offlineCX747 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 4454 posts, RR: 5
Reply 4, posted (9 years 8 months 12 hours ago) and read 8371 times:

It is good to hear that this airframe continues to garner orders. Is there any possibility of an increase in the number of C-17s based at McGuire?


"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
User currently offlineFlagshipAZ From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 3419 posts, RR: 14
Reply 5, posted (9 years 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 8065 times:

Per my latest issue (1/17/05) of Aviation Week, the C-17 Has enough orders to keep the line open at LGB thru 2011. The USAF will probably get all 222 C-17s that they want. Currently they have approximately 110-115 birds. And the RAF will get their 5th C-17 as well. Regards.


"Beer is living proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy." --Ben Franklin
User currently offlineN328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6485 posts, RR: 3
Reply 6, posted (9 years 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 8066 times:

FlagshipAZ:

The problem wasn't the line itself. It was long-lead items.

And my Aviation Week from last July mentioned the delivery of USAF C-17 #121.

[Edited 2005-01-23 19:52:53]


When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
User currently offlineFredplt From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 110 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (9 years 6 months 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 7316 times:

As a C5 pilot, the plane is the most useless airlifter the AF has ever invested in. it can't make it across the ocean with a full cargo load, it can't hold enough fuel, so it either has to hit a tanker, or stop for gas somewhere. And if it has the center wing tank mod it then limits the amount of Cargo weight and also reduces it from an oversized airlifter to a C141 in basic terms. The military should cancel its orders and buy 747-400s or how about 777 cargo planes? How about bail out some airline companies and buy their older 747s and DC-10s and paint them gray and use them. Hell for 40 million a bird the C5s can be re-fitted with new engines and glass cockpits. We carry three times what a C17 carries and can fly 3 times as far without even a full fuel load! To answer some of your questions though, because Boeing is the only large scale US plane company the AF plans to buy 180+, but has not approved the 222, and might not. Maguire will have a full two squadrons of C17s, Dover AFB is getting a Squadron of them as is Travis AFB. There is talk of placing them in Alaska and in Hawaii as well. Makes sense to put a strategic airlifter in the middle of the ocean right.....The reason why no one has seen a civilian version flying around is because of its shortfalls with fuel and its tremdous overhead cost, no one wants it. A DC-10 carries more pallets, an old 747 carries even more pallets, almost as much as the C5. So who would waste money on something that can carry only 18 pallets, and with that much cargo can't make it anywhere without a fuel stop?

User currently offlineSATL382G From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (9 years 6 months 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 7298 times:

Quoting Fredplt (Reply 7):
it can't make it across the ocean with a full cargo load, it can't hold enough fuel, so it either has to hit a tanker, or stop for gas somewhere.

So are you saying that the next time you come thru my base I'll be able to put 209,000LBS of cargo on your aircraft (without getting a waiver) and you can go straight to Moron without hitting a tanker? That'll be the day...

Quoting Fredplt (Reply 7):
And if it has the center wing tank mod it then limits the amount of Cargo weight

So what? If you put additional tanks on the C-5 you'll have the same result.

Quoting Fredplt (Reply 7):
The military should cancel its orders and buy 747-400s or how about 777 cargo planes?

Ever trying getting a Stryker or M1 on a 747? Not happening pal. What 777 cargo planes? No such animal. How about delivering airborne troops -- that's not going to happen on a 74 or a C-5.

Quoting Fredplt (Reply 7):
We carry three times what a C17 carries and can fly 3 times as far without even a full fuel load!

C-5 can't take a full tank of gas and still carry a worth while load....

Quoting Fredplt (Reply 7):
The reason why no one has seen a civilian version flying around is because of its shortfalls with fuel and its tremdous overhead cost, no one wants it

And there are no civilian C-5s flying around because ...?

And why don't you tell everybody why the C-5 needs those new engines and avionics? Will RERP/AMP do anything for the hydraulics? Will C-5s with broke kneeling systems still show up at my base unable to load items that need a low ramp crest?

The C-5 is a unique machine and and USAF needs it, but it will never match the reliability and flexibility of the C-17.

regards-- a retired USAF air transporter/load planner/airlift validater


User currently offlineFredplt From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 110 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (9 years 6 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 7274 times:

 Smile
Just for your understanding of why we in the C5 are sick of the C 17 and think its a waste.
1. There is no way a C17 can carry 219,000 pounds of cargo, and the C5 actually can. There aren't many runways long enough to get off the ground with our antiquted engines with that much cargo and fuel to fly very far, but with a max gross weight of 840 thousand pounds wartime, We could get pretty far if we have to. If you do the numbers, 380K is the planes empty weight, 209K cargo, so 589K, put 250K of gas and you have 839,000 pounds. So pretty much, if we hve the runway we can do it, and I have, out of Moron Air Base during the hieght of the War, 832,000 pounds, made it from Spain to Kuwait 8 hours without any fuel stop. Looks like we can do it, and I did.
2. We dont need additional fuel tanks on the C5, we can carry the gas and if we get our new engines we will be able to take a normal cargo load out of Charleston (130K, 36 pallets) and a normal fuel load and never need the tanker, easily. So why would we even consider new fuel tanks, the C5 was actually a decent design in that respect.
3. Most of what we in AMC are carrying are smaller equipment right now or pallets, when we carry the outsized cargo AMC calls upon the C5 usually or a C17 if it needs a smaller amount moved. So why wouldn't we buy used 747s for the pallets? And I know there are no 777 cargo planes, but Boeing should make them, be a good replacement for the MD 11s and DC 10s!
4. A C5 can take a full load of gas, 332K and still take 125K on cargo if waived to wartime weights (which we are now) if the base has a decent runway, see number one.
5. As far as our problems with breaking, when you divert all of AMCs funds to one plane the others break (my friend a KC 10 pilot has noticed the reliability of that plane fall the last 5 years as well). The C5 parts aren't timed anymore, the plane is on a "fly to fail" mentality which means they don't replace anything until the part actually breaks. It usually breaks at the worst possible time. Try driving a 1967 Chevy and never doing anything to it until it breaks. Chances are it won't go that far. And don't think those C17s are that reliable. I can count half a dozen times in the last year I have brought them parts to forward locations to help them get off the ground. There were no C5 in the civilian world cause at the time of it's inception it wasn't needed, and with its crappy kneeling system no one would want it, just like the C17 its a better military plane than civilian.
But the C5 is a better and far more diverse cargo carrier than the C17. We can airdrop pallets and then troops, but we don't anymore cause AMC got sick of the C5 showing up the C17 drops, the C5 still holds the record for the heaviest drop. We can back up too, but they don't want us to because AMC doesn't want to chance something breaking on the plane. we can load at both ends, the C5 was designed to land and drive around on unprepared surfaces and can easily, it has a smaller footprint than a C17. And as far and the whole short takeoff and landing thing, I will give it to the C17, but last night with a gross weight of 589,000 pounds we landed here in Rota and our landing distance was less than 2500 feet. Aren't too many planes with 24 brakes, we may not get off the ground well, but we can stop better than just about anything!

I am not sure the length of your runway "at your base" But to be honest, the C17 isnt all it was supposed to be and it is not a premier airlifter by any means of the imagination, unless you are work for Boeing or are a General who wants a new toy. There was a reason why in the 80s the military said no, but apparently someone wanted to get another star and reintorduced the idea. We have takers that are rotting away and cargo planes (141s) that were doing fine and yet the rotting planes are flying still and the good planes with all new avionics are in the boneyard. That's some brilliant thinking. Sure the C5s are falling apart, and with the Engines and avionics the Hydraulics will still be there, but thinking the C17 is the answer to the US militarys airlift needs, not even close.


User currently offlineSATL382G From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (9 years 6 months 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 7255 times:

Quoting Fredplt (Reply 9):
1. There is no way a C17 can carry 219,000 pounds of cargo, and the C5 actually can. There aren't many runways long enough to get off the ground with our antiquted engines with that much cargo and fuel to fly very far, but with a max gross weight of 840 thousand pounds wartime, We could get pretty far if we have to. If you do the numbers, 380K is the planes empty weight, 209K cargo, so 589K, put 250K of gas and you have 839,000 pounds.

Trouble is your users (me) can't put 209K of cargo on the C-5, we can't even put 150K on it. We are limited to 135K. If I can get a waiver from AMC (rare, only granted when it's to AMCs advantage) yeah I can got to 209

Quoting Fredplt (Reply 9):
3. Most of what we in AMC are carrying are smaller equipment right now or pallets, when we carry the outsized cargo AMC calls upon the C5 usually or a C17 if it needs a smaller amount moved. So why wouldn't we buy used 747s for the pallets? And I know there are no 777 cargo planes, but Boeing should make them, be a good replacement for the MD 11s and DC 10s!

DOH!! The way AMC justified the C-17s & C-5s was to justify flying the outsized by air!! Congress will be very interested to learn AMC doesn't need that capability anymore. Yeah there's a role for 747s to fly pallets -- it's called CRAF! If you have to ask what that stands for you have no business in this discussion.

Quoting Fredplt (Reply 9):
4. A C5 can take a full load of gas, 332K and still take 125K on cargo if waived to wartime weights (which we are now) if the base has a decent runway, see number one.

125K payload is a waste of an airframe. Figure 22K for 73 pax & bags leaves only 102K for cargo which amounts to a couple of frontend loaders and a couple of pallets. Still plenty of room for the loads to play football on the main deck.

Quoting Fredplt (Reply 9):
5. As far as our problems with breaking, when you divert all of AMCs funds to one plane the others break (my friend a KC 10 pilot has noticed the reliability of that plane fall the last 5 years as well). The C5 parts aren't timed anymore, the plane is on a "fly to fail" mentality which means they don't replace anything until the part actually breaks. It usually breaks at the worst possible time. Try driving a 1967 Chevy and never doing anything to it until it breaks. Chances are it won't go that far. And don't think those C17s are that reliable. I can count half a dozen times in the last year I have brought them parts to forward locations to help them get off the ground. There were no C5 in the civilian world cause at the time of it's inception it wasn't needed, and with its crappy kneeling system no one would want it, just like the C17 its a better military plane than civilian.

Dude!! The C5s mission capable rate sucked big fat ones when AMC had money! No doubt it got worse when the money went away. That's why there's C-5s getting scrapped at DM for spares! Sure I've seen C-17s break, but I don't have to plan for them breaking like I do a C-5. And the C-17 will usually do it enroute, whereas the typical C-5 has a hard time leaving home station. How do your home station and enroute departure reliability rates stack up against the C-17s? Poorly I bet....

Quoting Fredplt (Reply 9):
But the C5 is a better and far more diverse cargo carrier than the C17. We can airdrop pallets and then troops, but we don't anymore cause AMC got sick of the C5 showing up the C17 drops,

So the C-5s poor ontime reliability record for picking up the Army had nothing to do with it? Yeah right....

Quoting Fredplt (Reply 9):
the C5 still holds the record for the heaviest drop.

Big whoop. No doubt that it has that kind of record. Trouble is AMC won't use the capability.

Quoting Fredplt (Reply 9):
We can back up too, but they don't want us to because AMC doesn't want to chance something breaking on the plane.

There's a lot of things AMC won't let the C-5 do for fear of breaking something. Back up, using congested airfields, using contested airfields, etc

Quoting Fredplt (Reply 9):
we can load at both ends

When it ain't broke it can. My personal experience: 1 in 3 can't load at both ends. And we never know which we're going to get so we don't plan to use that capability.

Quoting Fredplt (Reply 9):
the C5 was designed to land and drive around on unprepared surfaces and can easily,

Have you ever done it? AMC doesn't operate the C-5 that way and hasn't since shortly after they started to operate them.

I was one of your airlift customers. I dealt with all kinds of airlift and all kinds of airlift users. In my world, C-5 has a shitty reputation and for the most part it's deserved. My God man the design was so poor they had to replace the wing! Replace the wing! On the other hand it has capabilities no other airlifter does. Most C-5 crews are aware of it's strengths and weaknesses and will play to them. But every so often I got a C-5 crew that was in it's own world and would "plan" their malfunctions for primo spots --


User currently offlineFredplt From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 110 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (9 years 6 months 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 7251 times:

True, there are C5 crews that do plan and use the C5 rep to break, not me. I am only flying OIF missions and I work damn hard, yesterday I flew here to Spain from Travis, had one mission writeup that wasn't essential and the plane went downrange and back already. You have some bad experience, my last 2 week mission was 8 legs long and 4 times both ends were opened and we were knelt 3 times. Not a single break. It is people like you and your bad stories that put the image of it in other peoples heads. You only remember bad things, or do you have anything good to say about the airframe?
Also for you understanding, the wing was changed not by lockheed but by washington under the original plan to keep costs down and at the time the thought that they would replace the fleet in 20 years anyways. It was a mistake and that is why Lockheed put the original designed wing on the B models and redid all the A models.
Im not sure how 120K is a useless load, considering 36 pallets usually weighs about that much when we go to Charleston (why they have the C17s there which I counted 24 of last night on the ramp). All I know is my home station reliability rate right now is over 80% and the C5 worldwide is 78%, those arent bad numbers considering the newest one is almost 20 years old. Lets wait and see how reliable the C17 is in 20 years. I wonder why the c5s are landing in Charleston all the time and taking max loads out of there when its a C17 base they are so preferred?


User currently offlineDuce50boom From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (9 years 6 months 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 7249 times:

Quoting Fredplt (Reply 11):
I wonder why the c5s are landing in Charleston all the time and taking max loads out of there when its a C17 base they are so preferred?

Because the funding for that mission was changed to the C-5 to give everyone a piece of the pie. KC-10s go to Charelston for the Soto cano runs, it doesn't mean the C-17 can't do it or does it poorly. But right now the 10 has it, next year it'll probably change again.


User currently offlineFredplt From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 110 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (9 years 6 months 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 7248 times:

Really, didn't realize that at all. there are a lot of planes there not just C5s, all the Atlas/World/evergreen guys land there too. It is though rather disparaging to land and count that many tails and then be told by TACC how the C17 is the premeir Strategic Airlifter!
do you think the 10 has lost its Gucci status?


User currently offlineDuce50boom From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (9 years 6 months 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 7241 times:

No worries. But TACC is in mushroom mode anyway, I wouldn't trust them to not steal my wallet if I'm drowning in a river. The missions AMC does change constantly, both with demand and funding. The 10s used to do A7s and YSIDs back in the day, then A7s went to the FREDs IIRC and YSIDs went to Barney. Now YSIDs are back in the 10 and A7s are now G4s or something and back in the 10. All this stuff changes and has more money and politics written all over it than congress. It's a battle just keeping your head above the water.

Most definitely. But look at what she's suffered through the last decade. Alot has to do with constant desert rotations and a lack of TLC, but alot also has to do with the bases. I just came from mcguire, and although mx guys do miracles over there, the quality of the jets here at SUU is leaps and bounds above what I was used to at the m to the g. 3 or 4 pages of 781Ks were normal there. Not here. Not even mentioning how much cleaner and nicer looking (both exterior and interior) SUU tails are, sts


User currently offlineFredplt From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 110 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (9 years 6 months 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 7241 times:

YES
I am a KSUU pilot too and the difference between Dover C5s and the Travis ones are remarkable. I find that when I am on a Dover tail in the system I can assume I will break (as the last one I flew I had to shut the engine down 300 miles off the coast of Canada, but I still flew it all the way to Dover!) and the Travis tails will fly, like the one I flew here to Spain last night, two legs, 13+ hours and only ONE write up. Maybe I should bag on just Dover C5s, hell I would even agree with someone who talked bad about them and not the Travis Tails. Why is it the West Coast 10s and 5s are running better, think the weather has an effect? I agree, the desert is destroying the planes!


User currently offlineDL021 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 11447 posts, RR: 75
Reply 16, posted (9 years 6 months 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 7210 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Blackbird1331 (Reply 1):
I would like to see a civilian version of the C17.

There was a civilian MD-17 project but there were no takers. The airplane does not have adequate operating economics for civilian applications. Its range is not good enough to make it across the water with a full load, and civil operators can carry more pallets for less money with an MD-11 or a 747F. When they need to carry outsize loads they can always charter a military aircraft, but that need is fairly rare, and seems to be well met by existing aircraft with companies such as Volga-Dnepr. If there was a desire for them UPS or FedEx had, and probably still could, have their opportunity.



Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
User currently offlineLMP737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (9 years 6 months 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 7147 times:

Quoting Fredplt (Reply 7):
The military should cancel its orders and buy 747-400s or how about 777 cargo planes? How about bail out some airline companies and buy their older 747s and DC-10s and paint them gray and use them.

We both know the chances of the USAF canceling it's C-17 orders are pretty slim. Now let's say the USAF does cancel the remaining C-17 orders and goes with your suggestion. The 777F is still a paper airplane that has yet to fly. In addition you will not have the capability to carry roll-on-roll off equipment like the C-17. The 747-400 can carry a ton of stuff as we all know. If I'm not mistaken you can put vehicles and certain equipment on it through the nose. However it can't be more than eight feet tall. In other words no heavy vehicles or helicopters like the Blackhawk. Another thing about the 747-400F and 777F. When you're flying all that cargo you are going to need a 12000ft runway. Unimproved fields nees not apply.

Older 747 and DC-10's can be attractive due to their low price. However they come with their own set of issues. Number one is finding suitable airframes. A lot of your DC-10's out there are in service with companies like FedEx. The one's that you find that are suitable might/will have a lot of hours on them. Which means they won't have as long a service life as a new airframe. Then you have to take into account that these aircraft will have come form different carriers. This means different equipment, engine, effectivities etc. This can be a tremendous pain in the butt and can prove to be expensive in the long run. Then you have to look at the cost of maintaining these older aircraft. As someone who has worked on twenty five year old DC-10's I can attest to their temperamental nature.

Then don't forget you will be adding another type aircraft to the USAF transport fleet which will drive up your costs.


User currently offlineFredplt From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 110 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (9 years 6 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 7087 times:

I totally agree with what you are saying, it would help but in the long run I think using companies like Evergreen and Atlas is a far smarter solution to the AF needing to move Pallet cargo. As far as the C17, its no bargain either at what 250+ million to move 18 pallets with a fuel stop? Or fly two airplanes to get that one C17 and its 18 pallets to its destination? But on the issue of Outsized, your right, the C17 is a smarter choice. But don't let them fool you, they don't land on unprepared surfaces either, very very rare, we let the little and very tough little C130s do all that fun stuff. Pretty much the C5 and the C17 are going to the same places in Iraq right now, barring a few that don't have the ramp space for a C5. To make things more cost effective with the planes the AF has they should consider the 40 million a bird for the C5 Engines and new Avionic upgrades! In the long run it will save them money in gas and parts!

User currently offlineN1641 From United States of America, joined May 2000, 220 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (9 years 6 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 7076 times:

C-17 vs. C-5? arent they 2 totally different missions?, wouldnt a 747 replace a C-5 before it replaced the -17, C-5= carry a whole lot of stuff somewhere, C-17= carry not as much but do into crappy little strips in a war time environment? I suppose you could just have the C-5 bring its tons of stuff into Baghdad Intl then let a billion 50 year old C-130's deliver it to all the little fields in Iraq.

User currently offlineLMP737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (9 years 6 months 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 7049 times:

Quoting Fredplt (Reply 18):
totally agree with what you are saying, it would help but in the long run I think using companies like Evergreen and Atlas is a far smarter solution to the AF needing to move Pallet cargo.

I'm not exactly sure what you are agreeing with me on. Maybe a little clarification might help.


User currently offlineFredplt From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 110 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (9 years 6 months 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 7034 times:

Im agreeing with the thought of older airplanes wouldn't solve the AF problem of moving cargo and that the Commercial carriers do a good job and get things done just as well, but that they can't go in country.
The C5 and C17 mission is very close to the same thing right now. Both are considered Strategic, although one was built and designed for tactical airlift. What we do now, and I can say this cause I have landed a C5 personally in Iraq over 40 times now, is bring in A LOT of stuff, rolling stock (trucks tanks etc) and pallets and then it gets dispersed from there. There are a limited amount of fields we can land at because of the ramp space and destruction we did to them when the war started. It's not new news that the C5 goes to Baghdad, that's where one was shot and hit (they shoot at us a lot but thankfully miss). Although the C5 was never intended to fly into such hostile areas we are now because it saves lives, every C5 that lands is roughly 3 convoys that don't have to happen. We have so much equipment and resupply to get there that all AMC assets move it. A lot of times we pick up equipment in Kuwait brought there by the Commercial movers to and bring that up into country as well.
A 747 could never replace a C5, it doesn't kneel (you'd be hard pressed to find something to lift a Abrahms tank etc.) The 747 also can't fit the oversized cargo a C5 can. The plane is remarkable but still would never be able to do what the C5 does, a reason why the military chose it over the 747, although it looks like Boeing won out on that deal as time went on!
The 130s are great, but they usually can't carry what we bring in country, so we are landing there on a regular basis, loaded to the max, just like the C17s. the 130s are doing a lot of Intratheater stuff, but the C5 and C17 is where the bulk of the cargo is coming in on!


User currently offlineSATL382G From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (9 years 6 months 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 7027 times:

Quoting Fredplt (Reply 11):
You have some bad experience, my last 2 week mission was 8 legs long and 4 times both ends were opened and we were knelt 3 times. Not a single break. It is people like you and your bad stories that put the image of it in other peoples heads. You only remember bad things, or do you have anything good to say about the airframe?

Fredplt,

The C-5 has a bad rep. AMC knows it, the airlift users know it, I know it, and you know it. I have been in the airlift business 23 years and have simply learned to plan for the C-5 being late, broke, etc. Fact of life for folks working with the C-5.

regards


User currently offlineAtmx2000 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4576 posts, RR: 37
Reply 23, posted (9 years 6 months 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 7005 times:

So how about the Boeing 747 LCF design for transporting 787 sectoins? Could it find a home in the military?


ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
User currently offlineSATL382G From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (9 years 6 months 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 6997 times:

Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 23):
So how about the Boeing 747 LCF design for transporting 787 sectoins? Could it find a home in the military?

No. Again there is no way to easily get heavy equipment on or off at an austere location. Commercial aircraft, AN124 & L100 aside, just can't do it.


25 DL021 : I think that idea is so new that the planners at Sodom-on-Potomac have yet to start analyzing it. It would be useful for outsize loads perhaps, but th
26 Galaxy5 : SATL382G its obvious you have an issue with the C-5 ive seen you post many times that you don't like it, But again your posts are way off base, i don'
27 Duce50boom : Fredplt, I know you mean well, but you really need to think hard about what you're saying on the net. Read your last post and think like a terrorist..
28 Fredplt : Yeah, no one can see the C5s on the ramp out there, so hard to see them sitting in broad daylight at an international airport. You are right though my
29 C17loadmstr : I was at that location for a month working as a duty loadmaster. Yes, you can see all the planes on the ramp driving down the interstate. But one thin
30 Fredplt : I get the point, I wrote it when I was tired after about a 18 hour day with no sleep. I understand and I regret it now. I was here for three months my
31 SATL382G : Dude -- Check AFI 10-403, Your bases Installation Deployment Guide (XAFBI 10-403), Your MAJCOM airlift planning guide, your installation logistics pl
32 Galaxy5 : SATL382G Get your head out of your own ass, there is nothing that says a normal operational C-5 is restricted from carrying any weight over what you c
33 Fredplt : galaxy5 is right, I just showed some of my loadmasters that message by SAT382G and they started laughing. And for those of you worried about my opsec
34 Duce50boom : As an un-qualified affiliation instructor take what I say with a grain of salt..... What SATL382G is saying, is that for peacetime planning purposes t
35 SATL382G : Well that's why I don't call loadmasters to order airlift..... Did either of you check any of the sources I gave you or are you just trying to show e
36 Duce50boom : No worries SATL, you were right, Galaxy and Fredplt, were wrong. You gotta see it from their perspective though: As fliers we know what our jet is cap
37 SATL382G : Duce, 151.4K? That's even stranger.. From the AMC airlift planning guide I take it? Do me a favor. If the debate on the planning figure continues take
38 Duce50boom : Yup, from that. No problem with the other sources. We'll see how that goes. No, I have not been to an affil class, or AICPC ever. Trips are slow in th
39 Galaxy5 : You guys can use planning guides for reference all you want, then call it that, A guide, not a restriction, Thats what we are talking about, SATL call
40 SATL382G : uh Galaxy, restriction is the word you used not me. I never called it a restriction. It does require a waiver however. As far as I, the airlift user,
41 Post contains links Galaxy5 : Maybe we all got off on the wrong foot here. Let me try to smooth this out. When you are referring to the planning cargo weight of the C-5 to be eithe
42 Fredplt : I will put this in, SATL may be going off something he used in the past. Since the start of the OEF/OIF "conflicts" a lot of things have changed. I am
43 B747 : Fredplt, I look forward to finally hearing some progress being made on this issue. Thanks, Brian
44 SATL382G : Fredplt -- it's not a process the aircrews are involved in, so yeah an A/C would never call it in. Duce was aware because he had taught the AMC affil
45 SATL382G : Hey gang I just read thru this thread again and I do not see anywhere where I used either the word RESTRICTION or RESTRICTED. If I missed it, please
46 USAFMXOfficer : Fred - Don't get too excited about a program that appears to be funded in the FYDP. Current DoD budget situation is extremely volatile to say the leas
47 Fredplt : Well four planes at Dover have already begun and the new Simulator is there (at Dover) and being set up. The payments have already been made and now i
48 Galaxy5 : "Trouble is your users (me) can't put 209K of cargo on the C-5, we can't even put 150K on it. We are limited to 135K. If I can get a waiver from AMC (
49 SATL382G : We as in "the airlift users" are in fact limited. I'm not talking about an airframe limitation or restriction. Check out the remarks section for your
50 Fredplt : I think that what Galaxy5 is trying to say that maybe the airplane is a lot more capable, and SATL382G is trying to say how the user has PLANNING rest
51 Socal : I have never heard such a thing. I know AMC,AETC have these birds.PACAF has ordered some, but SOCOM?? Does not seem right. There are no MC-17 or MC-14
52 Post contains links Vzlet : They may not be designated "MC", but there are "special" airlifter versions. "In 1994, the Air Force began a program to refit 13 C-141Bs to the "Speci
53 SATL382G : Sorry I thought this thread had died long ago... As I have said again & again TACC will hold a user to the planning weight anyway it can. If the user
54 Fredplt : I agree for worldwide cargo, it was built to use unprepared strips but never was employed for that kind of use. I would say now that we are landing on
55 Galaxy5 : Not 36 pallets at that weight but you can put 26 of those at that weight for about 260,000lbs which is the max cargo weight.
56 SATL382G : After pushing 26 10000lbs pallets on we'll being calling mx to fix the rollers and med grp to fix the pallet pushers... :-0. Gotta love the powered r
57 Fredplt : I have seen pallets at the 10 thousand pound weight and they didn't seem to have any trouble rolling on the plane and neither did the people who pushe
58 SATL382G : You obviously have not pushed many pallets on your aircraft.....
59 MD-90 : And yet the L-1011, designed not that long after the C-5, had a good reputation for reliability...
60 SATL382G : Lockheed learned a lot from it's trial and tribulations with the C-5..... Same with the engines, GE took what it learned from the TF39 and built the
61 B747 : What are you talking about? I work the plane everyday, and I have never seen any power rollers. Brian
62 C17loadmstr : The C-17 doesn't have powered rollers. They were in the original design but due to weight restrictions, they were removed. We have the same flip rolle
63 Duce50boom : The mighty KC-10 has the powered rollers SATL. Those babies are tricky at first, but get a couple really good cargo trips under your belt and you're a
64 SATL382G : I'm sure you're correct, don't misunderstand. But I'm positive I've seen pallets move under power on the C-17 or am I confusing it with the powered l
65 Post contains images C17loadmstr : Just the power of APS It's the electric locks. Pallet rolls into position. Flip a switch, hold until annuciator says "locked", and that's it. Make ni
66 Galaxy5 : yeah ive been on plenty of C-17's and i have never seen any powered rollers. BTW i was on one of the heaviest C-5 air drops, it was pretty cool, one p
67 Fredplt : I have pushed pallets onto the C5, many times, I have also pushed Aircraft engines and some other heavy connex things before too. I stopped when I hea
68 Post contains images C17loadmstr : I thought you were an AC? Isn't that what your co-pilots are for? And you've got the engineer to take care of them. Q: Why do they put 2 loadmasters
69 Post contains images SATL382G : If you haven't seen broken rollers in the C-5 then.......
70 Galaxy5 : And your point is?
71 SATL382G : My point is why doesn't he just fess up and admit that: A. The C-5 has problems just like any other aircraft (to include rollers that bust) or B. Tha
72 Post contains images Fredplt : HAHAHA I am gonna use that one! I am an AC, I was just making a point, usually I don't have time to help the loads downstairs and usually they are too
73 Galaxy5 : Well maybe he will when you get over the same yourself. You seem to think the C-5 is the only plane with broken rollers, or maintenance issues, or op
74 SATL382G : Well I'd be happy to post something positive but between you and Fredplt you've used up all my positive comments about the C-5 and then some and then
75 Fredplt : I think the true BS artist is you there SATL. You make up things you know nothing about and say things on here that are not true. What you USED to do
76 SATL382G : I make up things I know nothing about? Such as? Am I talking shit about what goes on in the cockpit? Nope. If you're going to make a flat out accusat
77 Fredplt : You have no idea what a MAX ACL Takeoff is do you? And If I had no life I would go back and find all the made up things that you have typed about the
78 Galaxy5 : you know what satl, you sound like a bitter dried up old angry retiree. The reason some of us that actually operate and fly the C-5 come here is to gi
79 B747 : Fredplt & Galaxy5 I was wondering how long you would keep letting him put you down in that sarcastic, condescending, and chastising way before you sna
80 Fredplt : I am sorry to sound like an angry person myself but I am sick of it. I have never put down an aviator, if I have I apologize. I don't like the C17, it
81 C17loadmstr : While you are entitled to your opinion, remember that there are many people on this board who are proponents of the program. I've been flying on it f
82 Galaxy5 : BTW, has anyone heard anything about the follow-on order. Last i heard, the C-17 probably won't see the 200+ that boeing/Handy want, funding has only
83 Fredplt : I heard 220 will be it, I don't know if it will stop short of that. If they offered me a C17 I would have to say I think I'd turn it down. I like the
84 C17loadmstr : Well at least you're honest and I thank you for that. I totally understand and do the same thing. BTW, my old squadron commander is moving up to Dover
85 Fredplt : Dover is in need of some good leadership from what I have heard! I was stationed there for 11 months as a Casual LT, there is so much to do around tha
86 Dacman : P-134 and P-135 are in pre-delivery flight test at present, P-136 will be soon (all are destined for McQuire AFB). Mike (dacman) lgbguy
87 Galaxy5 : so, there are now 136 C-17 tails produced? is that what im getting from this?
88 C17loadmstr : Yes. I believe that it was tail 70040 or 70041 that started the whole "number the tail after the P-code".
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Follow-on C-17 Order
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Rcaf Order Status On C-17 posted Wed Nov 1 2006 07:13:19 by ZBBYLW
Should Usaf Start A A-10 Follow-on Program? posted Mon Aug 22 2005 14:59:16 by KC135TopBoom
A Chance To Fly On A B-17 posted Tue May 22 2001 10:24:08 by DesertJets
C-17 On Google Sat Photo At Ashgabat Turkmenistan posted Tue Sep 26 2006 22:57:57 by Papoose
C-17 Mishap Last Year posted Fri Nov 24 2006 03:58:13 by Babaero
Space A Travel On Uscg Aircraft posted Wed Nov 15 2006 23:40:00 by Reedyreed
I Think I Am Almost Over Missing Out On The F-14. posted Fri Nov 10 2006 23:21:56 by 747400sp
Turkish Navy Orders 17 Seahawks posted Sat Nov 4 2006 15:22:30 by TK787
Museum C-141 On Sale For Scrap posted Thu Nov 2 2006 18:07:23 by DeltaGuy
Fly In A B-17 posted Wed Oct 25 2006 21:48:24 by Borat

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format