Fredplt From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 110 posts, RR: 0 Reply 5, posted (8 years 8 months 2 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 4695 times:
I am sure these were test model C17s, stressed to the poiint of snapping to check the limits of the aircraft. Although there are rumors to be a few C17s already at Davis Mothan AFB. I don't know if the rumors of that are true, something to do with hard landings that bent the planes beyond repair. Anyone have truth to that rumor?
C17loadmstr From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 9, posted (8 years 8 months 2 weeks ago) and read 4506 times:
Duce is partially correct. The plane received a one-time waiver to fly to Turkey after cracking the gear on landing at Bagram. I don't believe there are any C-17's at the boneyard but I have seen pics of the YC-15 parked there.
Fredplt From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 110 posts, RR: 0 Reply 11, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 4331 times:
Okay maybe they are the YC15s but I heard that they were having some hard landing planes out there. So someone tell me that knows, if they have had these hard landing/broken gear issues, than is the viability of raising its max gross weight going to happen, or is it just a rumor, seems like packing on more weight would only lead to more problems with more broken gear?
I am curious, I am also spoiled, I can land at any weight I can takeoff at, kinda nice!
SATL382G From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 12, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 4312 times:
Quoting Fredplt (Reply 11): I can land at any weight I can takeoff at, kinda nice!
A question I've always wanted to ask.... Given an A/R capability, can your jet fly at higher weight than it can takeoff or land with? And have you done it?
Fred -- You and I have our own opinions about the C-5 & C-17. I think you would have to admit though that the C-5 you fly today has been thru a long and difficult maturation process, many lessons of which were incorporated in the C-17 we have today. Similarly the C-17 is going thru it's own difficulties and those things will get sorted out as new Blocks come off the line and older Blocks go to PDM.
If you get a line on which C-17s went to the desert and why, let me know.
P.S. I bet you're thinking of the C-17 that had the HMMWV stuck in the door. I wanna say that guy was busted for a long time, like 2 years, before it flew again.
Fredplt From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 110 posts, RR: 0 Reply 13, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 4258 times:
Thats a long time. I agree, and most that was learned with the C5 went into the C17. The problem with the whole sets of blocks like fighters is that many of them will be different and cost more to repair, hopefully that won't be a problem in the future. There is of course a reason why they call the C5 FRED!
Wingnut135 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 134 posts, RR: 0 Reply 15, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 4021 times:
Quoting Duce50boom (Reply 10): I just remembered turkey, forgot about it breaking somewhere else. Wasn't it at Incirlik for a month or two?
I was in Incirlik working the en route during the opening months of OEF when that one "came back". They went on a mission down range and let's just say they didn't land where they were supposed to and did a lot of damage to the nose and both right gears. Even fod damage to #3 & #4. Boeing sent 4 or 5 guys to patch it up but as the clock wound down to the "if it's on the ground for 30 days it's ours" rule, we helped them get it out of there. After seeing that job there's nothing that speed tape and double bubble can't fix.
A good friend will get you out of jail. A real friend will be there with you saying, "Damn that was fun!"
Mikefly562 From United States of America, joined Oct 2002, 23 posts, RR: 0 Reply 16, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 3644 times:
I work on the C-17 program, and as of 5/4/2005, ALL C-17s that are built are still in service. We do have several down for avionics upgrades at any given time, but other than that, the whole fleet is doing quite well. The one's in the pictures were development fixtures that were never meant to fly.
Fredplt From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 110 posts, RR: 0 Reply 17, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 3643 times:
In for avionics upgrades!?!?!?
I fly avionics that were originally design 20-30 years ago and they are already getting upgrades. That's pretty fair though. What do you expect for 300 million a piece, obviously not avionics that work.
C17loadmstr From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 18, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 3619 times:
The actual price for a C-17 has dropped considerably since in the past 10 years. I believe the latest number is something like $215 million.
Quoting Fredplt (Reply 13):
The problem with the whole sets of blocks like fighters is that many of them will be different and cost more to repair, hopefully that won't be a problem in the future.
Actually that is a problem. Between avionics upgrades and aircraft equipment (exterior & interior), you never know what you're going to fly each day. On Monday, I could fly tail 70048 which has the Block 12 avionics upgrade but is not ER. Then on Tuesday, I could fly 31123 which is a Block 15 with all the new technology. And of course, with the introduction of each new Block, all the older versions have to be retrofitted with the new equipment.
From the cargo compartment perspective, I would love for the BSA (Buffer Stop Assembly) be moved to a more suitable location or removed all together. We never use it and when we do it's a major pain to assemble. The anchor cable supports (for CDS & personnel drops) could use a major overhaul as well. The design is good but the craftmanship of the material is horrible.
Galaxy5 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 2034 posts, RR: 26 Reply 19, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 3509 times:
Yeah the maxc take of weight normal day to day for the C-5 is 769,000lbs and you can land at 769,000lbs. Now war take-off is 840,000lbs and the plane can be landed at the same weight, you just have to arrest the sink rate. Now as for growing pains of the C-5 you must remember when it was developed there was nothing like it, not even close. The airframe, engines and technology for it were all new. The C-17 is actually supposed to be cheaper of the shelf technology.
"damn, I didnt know prince could Ball like that" - Charlie Murphy
Fredplt From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 110 posts, RR: 0 Reply 20, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 3486 times:
CHeaper off the shelf and designed by a computer, not by hand. FRED is a tough customer, they re-enforced everything on that plane! Both good ways of doing it though, but with all these blocks, I would hate to fly the C17, too many different numbers to remember I would imagine. I like my old Tape gauges too, easy to read!
KennyK From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 482 posts, RR: 0 Reply 23, posted (8 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 3134 times:
If you have any C-17s that are slightly rough around the edges and need a new home, please send them our way. I believe our 4 have over double the hours they planned to have at this stage. the only good news is we're going to keep them and get a 5th.... sometime, would be nice to have even more.
Bsergonomics From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2002, 462 posts, RR: 0 Reply 24, posted (8 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 3132 times:
Tape gauges changed to digital dials? You (or, at least, the Supplier) need to get yourselves a HF Engineer (I charge very reasonable rates... ).
Just out of curiosity: I was talking with a paratrooper friend of mine a couple of days ago. He said that he much preferred the C-5 to the C-17 because, in the back, you didn't even know you'd taken off. Part of it was the feel and part was the noise levels. Any thoughts/comments from the professionals (in particular Air Loadmasters etc.)?
The definition of a 'Pessimist': an Optimist with experience...
25 C17loadmstr: I for one have never been on a C-5 for takeoff/landing so I don't know what it feels like. However, I would imagine there is an obvious difference bet
26 L-188: What the hell where they trying to do push it out sideways? Oh back to the photo. If you look on cabin in front I belive those are the mountings for
27 C17loadmstr: Nope, it happened during an airdrop. The drogue chute deployed and worked as advertised. It pulled the extraction package out of the plane but the pl
28 L-188: I am actually surprised that doesn't happen more often. I hated to deal with military boards when we flew them. Unlike the civilian "cookie sheets" I
29 SATL382G: Airdrop platforms are considerably different than military airlift pallets (boards?).