Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
C-17s Scrapped?  
User currently offlineFlyf15 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 2 days ago) and read 5364 times:

I'm very confused by what I see in this picture...anyone care to explain?

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/815711/L/

29 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineReggaebird From Jamaica, joined Nov 1999, 1176 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 2 days ago) and read 5342 times:

Those are the fatigue test and prototype airframes that were never destined to fly.

Reggaebird


User currently offlineDL021 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 11447 posts, RR: 75
Reply 2, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 5018 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Great shot of the Douglas DC-3 on the ramp stage right.


Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
User currently offlineAeroWeanie From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 1609 posts, RR: 52
Reply 3, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 4993 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Thats no DC-3 - thats the DC-2 that they are refurbishing for delivery to the Museum of Flight up here in Seattle!

User currently offlineNbgskygod From United States of America, joined May 2004, 815 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 4975 times:

The DC2 has been a staple of LGB for a very long time, DC, MDC, and now Boeing have used it on PR misssions around california for a long time.


"I use multi-billion dollar military satellite systems to find tupperware in the woods."
User currently offlineFredplt From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 110 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 4896 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?

User currently offlineDL021 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 11447 posts, RR: 75
Reply 6, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 4866 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting AeroWeanie (Reply 3):
Thats no DC-3 - thats the DC-2 that they are refurbishing for delivery to the Museum of Flight up here in Seattle!

Well slap my mouth!! You are correct, sir! I just saw what I was expecting. Upon closer inspection it IS a DC-2.

Even better.



Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
User currently offlineSATL382G From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 4826 times:

Quoting Fredplt (Reply 5):
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?

Well there's always the C-17 that moved Keiko from Oregon to Iceland (?). Landed at destination and snapped the main gear. Closed the runway for 10 days (?). But that jet got fixed.

Another had a Class A incident during a airdrop when a HMMWV got stuck in the door. That got fixed too, took a while.

Didn't a McChord crew break the gear on one in Iraq?


User currently offlineDuce50boom From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 4778 times:

I think that one was in Turkey; class A

User currently offlineC17loadmstr From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 13 hours ago) and read 4707 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.

User currently offlineDuce50boom From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 4627 times:

Sorry about that one. I just remembered turkey, forgot about it breaking somewhere else. Wasn't it at Incirlik for a month or two?

User currently offlineFredplt From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 110 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (9 years 5 months 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 4532 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!  Smile


User currently offlineSATL382G From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (9 years 5 months 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 4513 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.

regards

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.

[Edited 2005-04-14 22:11:18]

User currently offlineFredplt From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 110 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (9 years 5 months 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 4459 times:

WOW
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!


User currently offlinePW4084 From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 291 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (9 years 5 months 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 4455 times:

C-17 is the same way, max landing weight=max takeoff weight...

The highest weight I've landed at is 526,000 Lbs-- probably a pittance to you Fredplt !  Smile

SATL, I don't know of any C-17s that have been to the boneyard; There's nothing technical stopping you from taking fuel above and beyond MTW via A/R but it's not legal.

Back to JAG... PW4084


User currently offlineWingnut135 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 134 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (9 years 5 months 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 4222 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.

Wingnut



A good friend will get you out of jail. A real friend will be there with you saying, "Damn that was fun!"
User currently offlineMikefly562 From United States of America, joined Oct 2002, 23 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (9 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 3845 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.

User currently offlineFredplt From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 110 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (9 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 3844 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.


User currently offlineC17loadmstr From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (9 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 3820 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.


User currently offlineGalaxy5 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 2034 posts, RR: 24
Reply 19, posted (9 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 3710 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
User currently offlineFredplt From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 110 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (9 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 3687 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!

User currently offlineGalaxy5 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 2034 posts, RR: 24
Reply 21, posted (9 years 4 months 2 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 3649 times:

better bet use to digital dial readouts, with the amp progressing. A shame i like the tape type gauges myself, easy to see if something isn't working the same.


"damn, I didnt know prince could Ball like that" - Charlie Murphy
User currently offlineFredplt From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 110 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (9 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 3565 times:

Very True
No two engines are ever working the same though! I will miss the tape gauges!!!


User currently offlineKennyK From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 482 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (9 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 3335 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.

User currently offlineBsergonomics From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2002, 462 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (9 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 3333 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... bigthumbsup  ).

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?).
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic C-17s Scrapped?
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...
Report: Congress Expected To Fund Additional C-17s posted Fri Sep 22 2006 01:25:37 by Lumberton
Next AFB To Get C-17s? posted Wed Jun 14 2006 04:23:14 by Dacman
Canada To Buy 4 Boeing C-17s posted Wed May 31 2006 00:31:33 by KrisYYZ
Croatian AF To Acquire New Mi-17s - Finally posted Thu May 25 2006 09:15:38 by TripleDelta
RAAF To Buy C-17s posted Fri Mar 3 2006 13:56:25 by DL021
Will The Air Force Buy More Than 180 C-17s? posted Fri Feb 10 2006 20:29:07 by CX747
C-17s Scrapped? posted Tue Apr 12 2005 06:54:48 by Flyf15
Need Info On B-17s/B-24s Of 490th Bomb Group posted Mon Nov 22 2004 02:00:24 by SmithAir747
C-17s At IAD Toady posted Fri May 14 2004 00:45:36 by FlyIGuy
Remaining B-17s Still Flying? posted Thu Jan 1 2004 04:41:54 by Dodgecharger

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format