flyf15
Posts: 6633
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 11:10 am

C-17s Scrapped?

Tue Apr 12, 2005 1:54 pm

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

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/815711/L/
 
Reggaebird
Posts: 886
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 1999 7:43 am

RE: C-17s Scrapped?

Tue Apr 12, 2005 2:00 pm

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

Reggaebird
 
dl021
Posts: 10836
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 12:04 pm

RE: C-17s Scrapped?

Tue Apr 12, 2005 10:58 pm

Great shot of the Douglas DC-3 on the ramp stage right.
Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
 
aeroweanie
Posts: 1577
Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2004 9:33 pm

RE: C-17s Scrapped?

Tue Apr 12, 2005 11:56 pm

Thats no DC-3 - thats the DC-2 that they are refurbishing for delivery to the Museum of Flight up here in Seattle!
 
NBGSkyGod
Posts: 812
Joined: Sun May 30, 2004 7:30 am

RE: C-17s Scrapped?

Wed Apr 13, 2005 12:41 am

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.
Pilots are idots, who at any given moment will attempt to kill themselves or others.
 
fredplt
Posts: 110
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 8:46 am

RE: C-17s Scrapped?

Wed Apr 13, 2005 4:05 am

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?
 
dl021
Posts: 10836
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 12:04 pm

RE: C-17s Scrapped?

Wed Apr 13, 2005 5:33 am

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?
 
SATL382G
Posts: 2679
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2004 12:02 am

RE: C-17s Scrapped?

Wed Apr 13, 2005 7:52 am

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?
"There’s nothing quite as exhilarating as being shot at and missed" --Winston Churchill
 
Duce50Boom
Posts: 723
Joined: Tue May 29, 2001 8:03 am

RE: C-17s Scrapped?

Wed Apr 13, 2005 9:39 am

I think that one was in Turkey; class A
 
c17loadmstr
Posts: 87
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 4:21 pm

RE: C-17s Scrapped?

Thu Apr 14, 2005 12:50 am

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.
There are 3 types of people. Those who can count, and those who can't.
 
Duce50Boom
Posts: 723
Joined: Tue May 29, 2001 8:03 am

RE: C-17s Scrapped?

Thu Apr 14, 2005 10:42 am

Sorry about that one. I just remembered turkey, forgot about it breaking somewhere else. Wasn't it at Incirlik for a month or two?
 
fredplt
Posts: 110
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 8:46 am

RE: C-17s Scrapped?

Fri Apr 15, 2005 3:20 am

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
 
SATL382G
Posts: 2679
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2004 12:02 am

RE: C-17s Scrapped?

Fri Apr 15, 2005 5:08 am

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]
"There’s nothing quite as exhilarating as being shot at and missed" --Winston Churchill
 
fredplt
Posts: 110
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 8:46 am

RE: C-17s Scrapped?

Fri Apr 15, 2005 11:08 am

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!
 
PW4084
Posts: 287
Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2001 7:31 pm

RE: C-17s Scrapped?

Fri Apr 15, 2005 11:25 am

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
 
wingnut135
Posts: 124
Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2005 11:17 am

RE: C-17s Scrapped?

Sun Apr 17, 2005 11:18 pm

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!"
 
mikefly562
Posts: 23
Joined: Wed Oct 30, 2002 10:02 am

RE: C-17s Scrapped?

Thu May 05, 2005 8:57 am

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
Posts: 110
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 8:46 am

RE: C-17s Scrapped?

Thu May 05, 2005 8:59 am

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
Posts: 87
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 4:21 pm

RE: C-17s Scrapped?

Thu May 05, 2005 12:57 pm

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.
There are 3 types of people. Those who can count, and those who can't.
 
galaxy5
Posts: 1952
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2000 10:09 pm

RE: C-17s Scrapped?

Fri May 06, 2005 9:05 am

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
Posts: 110
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 8:46 am

RE: C-17s Scrapped?

Fri May 06, 2005 11:35 am

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!
 
galaxy5
Posts: 1952
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2000 10:09 pm

RE: C-17s Scrapped?

Fri May 06, 2005 9:59 pm

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
 
fredplt
Posts: 110
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 8:46 am

RE: C-17s Scrapped?

Sat May 07, 2005 1:02 pm

Very True
No two engines are ever working the same though! I will miss the tape gauges!!!
 
KennyK
Posts: 226
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2005 3:08 am

RE: C-17s Scrapped?

Sat May 28, 2005 7:54 am

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
Posts: 458
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2002 5:07 am

RE: C-17s Scrapped?

Sat May 28, 2005 10:40 am

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...
 
c17loadmstr
Posts: 87
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 4:21 pm

RE: C-17s Scrapped?

Mon Oct 03, 2005 1:46 pm

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 between the C-17 / C-5. At the point of takeoff in a C-17, you can not only hear the engines spool up but also feel the plane shake. I would imagine (cuz I don't know) that there is a difference in the C-5 b/c you are sitting above the engines instead of below them.

Someone correct me here: C-5's no longer do airdrops? Dover has dropped their SOLL program altogether?
There are 3 types of people. Those who can count, and those who can't.
 
L-188
Posts: 29881
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 1999 11:27 am

RE: C-17s Scrapped?

Mon Oct 03, 2005 3:27 pm

Quoting SATL382G (Reply 7):
Another had a Class A incident during a airdrop when a HMMWV got stuck in the door. That got fixed too, took a while.

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 the stress rig still on the tail of the aircraft....the silver things hanging down.
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
 
c17loadmstr
Posts: 87
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 4:21 pm

RE: C-17s Scrapped?

Mon Oct 03, 2005 11:19 pm

Quoting L-188 (Reply 26):
What the hell where they trying to do push it out sideways?

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 platform was stuck in the rail system (which had never happened before). Of course back then there was no pole knife to cut the extraction line, so these poor reservists didn't know what to do. They had no way to cut the line and sure as hell weren't going to step in front of the platform. So they thought that if they closed the door/ramp it would somehow cut the extraction chute away from the plane. Well, about the time the door is closing, the platform somehow got free and was dragged down the cargo floor, up the ramp, and plowed through the ramp toes that were stowed on the door. All the while a 15 foot parachute is being dragged behind the plane. Obviously they landed safely (though I'm not sure if the extraction line was cut or if they landed with it still attached) but due to that accident, a lot of changes were made in heavy airdrop procedure.

-Scott-
There are 3 types of people. Those who can count, and those who can't.
 
L-188
Posts: 29881
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 1999 11:27 am

RE: C-17s Scrapped?

Tue Oct 04, 2005 11:10 am

Quoting C17loadmstr (Reply 27):
It pulled the extraction package out of the plane but the platform was stuck in the rail system (which had never happened before).

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 am used to the military board have that series of tabs that will hand up on every latch if the board has any bend to it.
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
 
SATL382G
Posts: 2679
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2004 12:02 am

RE: C-17s Scrapped?

Tue Oct 04, 2005 12:07 pm

Quoting L-188 (Reply 28):
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 am used to the military board have that series of tabs that will hand up on every latch if the board has any bend to it.

Airdrop platforms are considerably different than military airlift pallets (boards?).
"There’s nothing quite as exhilarating as being shot at and missed" --Winston Churchill

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests