RedFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4214 posts, RR: 30 Reply 2, posted (5 years 10 months 3 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 4047 times:
I could be wrong, but it seemed to me its MLG lifted off just short of 5,000 feet from the start of the t/o run. Impressive, yes. But if it were empty, and if this were an airshow chances are it was, I would think it could do better than that.
Nite92 From United States of America, joined Oct 2007, 48 posts, RR: 3 Reply 4, posted (5 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 3968 times:
Having ridden in the back of many fully loaded C5's...I can tell you that thing was empty of both cargo and probably just a basic load of fuel.
Stuff 76 pax, 3 H-3's, and all the support equipment necessary for a 2 week overseas deployment, and it makes for a *very* long take off run. Especially on those nice hot and humid days at Andrews AFB. Nothing like sitting in the back going, any minute now....any....minute....now....ANY TIME YOU WANNA FLY AIRPLANE! Honestly that's how I felt one flight. I couldn't be sure, but I think we used 10,000 foot of the 11,700 available that day!
Wannabe From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 675 posts, RR: 3 Reply 8, posted (5 years 10 months 3 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 3408 times:
Here is a much more impressive departure. This was at an airshow in 2003 at SWF (Stewart Airport, Newburg, NY.)
This flight was empty and lightly fueled, and was off the ground in much less than 5000'. More impressive is the right turn right after departure. Although I did not film this, I was at this airshow and almost at the same location. It was one of the most dramatic departures I have ever seen.
XC5Eng From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 54 posts, RR: 0 Reply 11, posted (5 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 3275 times:
You can get it off the ground on short fields with a load by using 62.5% flaps but there better not be any obstacles! At 62.5% she climbs like a pig! If you need to get off the ground quick you set 62.5 % then as you climb out go to 40%. Very rarely used! The only time I did it is when we were on a Spec Ops mission.
Prebennorholm From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 6122 posts, RR: 55 Reply 12, posted (5 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 3242 times:
At MTOW the C-17 has an unimpressive power to weight ratio of 0.277. That is almost identical to (but slightly inferior to) an Airbus 340-600 with 0.278. Anyway it will probably at MTOW beat the A346 by a small margin due to its more lift than speed optimized wing airfoil section and state of the art high lift devices.
When empty it is an entirely different story since the C-17 can be loaded to way over twice its empty weight.
Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 6): ...I think at MTOW, the big beast actually uses closer to 11,000 feet to get its hulk airborne.
It depends very much upon temperature and runway elevation. At sea level and ISA temp it will hardly ever need that much concrete, but as temp and elevation rises, then everything is possible until wheel speed limit.
For very heavy and long flights from not too long runways I would assume that it would take off at way less than MTOW with reduced fuel load, and then visit a tanker pretty soon. That capability makes it a very capable aircraft.
Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs, Preben Norholm
XC5Eng From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 54 posts, RR: 0 Reply 14, posted (5 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 3130 times:
Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 6): I haven't bothered to confirm, but I think at MTOW, the big beast actually uses closer to 11,000 feet to get its hulk airborne.
Like Prebennorholm said, it depends upon atmospheric conditions. Temperature and pressure altitude has a lot to do with engine performance. In very hot areas and higher pressure altitude we would need long runways (10,000 ft +). However, if it was very cold and/or at SL we could get off the ground on 8000 ft. runways at 769,000 lbs. all day long.