Galaxy5007
Posts: 642
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2005 12:06 pm

Re: Did C-17 production end too soon after all ?

Tue Nov 06, 2018 1:15 am

Ozair wrote:
Galaxy5007 wrote:

No C-17's are in the boneyard, nor have any have been retired (other than T-1 which was the prototype and is at the NMUSAF).

It is an odd claim that DefenseNews has also made.
It’s unclear what other options would exist to increase the number of C-17 squadrons aside from restarting the production line. The U.S. Air Force currently operates 222 C-17s, but began retiring some of the oldest Globemaster IIIs in 2012. It may be possible that those C-17s could be taken out of storage and revitalized.

https://www.defensenews.com/digital-sho ... tion-line/

As far as I can tell the only actual production C-17 that was/is in storage is F-272 which was the last whitetail and probably sold to India. Source is https://www.planespotters.net/airframe/ ... ng/JW5OS6A

Anyone know if India has actually acquired F-272 yet?


T-1, YC-17A 87-0025 was retired in April 2012. For them to imply that other aircraft were retired other than the test jet, is just false.

14-0003, F-272---N272ZD is still registered to Boeing, so it has yet to be transferred to India. There were rumors that the sale fell through, and the USAF may just absorb it in FY19. But that's just a rumor I heard.
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 1727
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: Did C-17 production end too soon after all ?

Tue Nov 06, 2018 1:38 am

I ended my C-5 years in 2005, saw the M prototype being converted at Dobbins at a flight manuals review just before leaving. A M flew over the house the other day, probably at 2,000’ AGL, nearly unnoticed. 18 years in it, I wished could have flown the M. An AMP’d A with HT-90s would be good enough for a lot of work. But, way too much support would be required to fly such a small fleet.

Thanks for your info.

GF
 
Galaxy5007
Posts: 642
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2005 12:06 pm

Re: Did C-17 production end too soon after all ?

Tue Nov 06, 2018 3:50 am

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
I ended my C-5 years in 2005, saw the M prototype being converted at Dobbins at a flight manuals review just before leaving. A M flew over the house the other day, probably at 2,000’ AGL, nearly unnoticed. 18 years in it, I wished could have flown the M. An AMP’d A with HT-90s would be good enough for a lot of work. But, way too much support would be required to fly such a small fleet.

Thanks for your info.

GF

C-5B 85-0004 and C-5A 69-0024 were inducted into AMP mod in 2002; Travis put in 5004, and we put in 9024. They started the AMP production at Dover in June 2004 on 86-0013, followed by 86-0025 in September 2004. The flew 6013 straight out of here in October to Lockheed to be the first for RERP (6025 finished up in January), then 5003 was AMPed and it flew to Lockheed to join the flight testing along with 5004 and 9024. Then in mid 2005, 5003 and 5004 came back to Dover, and 5004 got transferred to us. Once the AMP production got up and running here, they opened up another production line at Travis, and started out with 5005. We ended up getting two more Travis birds out of the deal. Once we started flying AMPed jets, the reliability definitely was higher on them because alot of the avionics related problems were solved. Our reliability rates were up in the upper 60's for the AMPed birds, where they were in the 50's for the non-amped versions.

In 2010, the plan was to AMP 37 A-models and have them continue service until 2025-2030. Lockheed was hoping to at least RERP some of them in the future, but they were 6 to 12 months late on several aircraft, breached the Nunn-McCurdy act, and after the lessons learned from modifying 9024, the AF decided against it. In 2011, they cancelled the contract for the last 10 A models, so only 27 got modified in the AMP production line. By that point, the AF slated Wright-Patt, Stewart, and Memphis were going to convert to C-17's, and Martinsburg was on the list for another potential unit (which of course did happen in 2014/15. It was pretty clear to me once they cancelled the 10 that had funding already that the plan was to retire all the A models. Originally they were to be gone by the end of FY16, but since the M model production line was going to take all the jets away from Westover, they decided to keep 5 A models in service till Westover got its first M model delivered.


To get back on topic; Pittsburgh has 5 C-17's now. After they get the last 3, it will bring Charleston down to 39 and McChord to 40 C-17's. It never made any sense why Westover split their C-5 fleet and gave 8 jets to Lackland when they would have been a perfect place for another C-17 base. So, now we have Charleston, McChord, Altus (Active but a training base), Dover, McGuire, Travis, and Hickam as active bases, March, Wright-Patterson, and Pittsburgh as reserve bases, and Jackson (MS), Memphis, Stewart, Martinsburg, Elmendorf, and Charlotte as the Guard bases. The Active C-5Ms are at Dover and Travis (18 each), and Westover and Lackland have 8 each as reserve bases)
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 1727
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: Did C-17 production end too soon after all ?

Tue Nov 06, 2018 4:14 am

Are you in the 436th or the 512th?

GF
 
User avatar
Runway28L
Posts: 1149
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2017 7:35 pm

Re: Did C-17 production end too soon after all ?

Tue Nov 06, 2018 4:57 am

Galaxy5007 wrote:
To get back on topic; Pittsburgh has 5 C-17's now. After they get the last 3, it will bring Charleston down to 39 and McChord to 40 C-17's. It never made any sense why Westover split their C-5 fleet and gave 8 jets to Lackland when they would have been a perfect place for another C-17 base. So, now we have Charleston, McChord, Altus (Active but a training base), Dover, McGuire, Travis, and Hickam as active bases, March, Wright-Patterson, and Pittsburgh as reserve bases, and Jackson (MS), Memphis, Stewart, Martinsburg, Elmendorf, and Charlotte as the Guard bases. The Active C-5Ms are at Dover and Travis (18 each), and Westover and Lackland have 8 each as reserve bases)

Do you happen to know which C-17s have been transferred to the 911th now?

So far, I've only caught 96-0001 and 02-1099.
Greetings from KPIT! Check out my photos here: https://www.airliners.net/search?user=45 ... teAccepted
 
Ozair
Posts: 3108
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

Re: Did C-17 production end too soon after all ?

Tue Nov 06, 2018 5:41 am

Galaxy5007 wrote:

T-1, YC-17A 87-0025 was retired in April 2012. For them to imply that other aircraft were retired other than the test jet, is just false.

14-0003, F-272---N272ZD is still registered to Boeing, so it has yet to be transferred to India. There were rumors that the sale fell through, and the USAF may just absorb it in FY19. But that's just a rumor I heard.

Thanks for the info.
 
LMP737
Posts: 5702
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 4:06 pm

Re: Did C-17 production end too soon after all ?

Tue Nov 06, 2018 10:41 pm

wingman wrote:
The 767 has no inherent loading capability for anything much larger than Amazon boxes so that seems like a no go right off the bat.


Amazon boxes along with CFM-56 and LEAP engines from Ohio to Seattle.
Never take financial advice from co-workers.
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 1727
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: Did C-17 production end too soon after all ?

Tue Nov 06, 2018 11:07 pm

But, it’s not roll-on, roll-off capability.

GF
 
LMP737
Posts: 5702
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 4:06 pm

Re: Did C-17 production end too soon after all ?

Wed Nov 07, 2018 3:05 am

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
But, it’s not roll-on, roll-off capability.

GF

Nope, but we all know the chances of the C-17 line reopening are slim to none.
Never take financial advice from co-workers.
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 1727
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: Did C-17 production end too soon after all ?

Wed Nov 07, 2018 3:34 am

With 250+ roll-on, roll-off frames, reopening the line is not needed. Neither is buying B747-8, 767 frames. If moving pallets and troops is the wartime mission, which is what we’re talking about, it can be contracted. It’s moving heavy equipment like Patriot missile systems, SOC units, munitions, that demands the military airlifters and the fleet is big enough and it’s not getting any bigger.

And, don’t forget, 90% of this cargo is moved by ship.

GF
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1013
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Did C-17 production end too soon after all ?

Wed Nov 07, 2018 5:18 am

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
If moving pallets and troops is the wartime mission, which is what we’re talking about, it can be contracted.

If the amount of pallets and personnel being moved around is rather consistent then it would be much better to bring that capability into the USAF. Even if it is just for security reasons.

I'm not sure how much the freight loads fluctuates but I'm positive there is enough to keep a dozen 747-8F's freighters in constant use. Or even just a couple dozen KC-46's without inflight refueling capability would be good. It has all the military comms already inbuilt.
 
Galaxy5007
Posts: 642
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2005 12:06 pm

Re: Did C-17 production end too soon after all ?

Wed Nov 07, 2018 5:36 am

Runway28L wrote:
Galaxy5007 wrote:
To get back on topic; Pittsburgh has 5 C-17's now. After they get the last 3, it will bring Charleston down to 39 and McChord to 40 C-17's. It never made any sense why Westover split their C-5 fleet and gave 8 jets to Lackland when they would have been a perfect place for another C-17 base. So, now we have Charleston, McChord, Altus (Active but a training base), Dover, McGuire, Travis, and Hickam as active bases, March, Wright-Patterson, and Pittsburgh as reserve bases, and Jackson (MS), Memphis, Stewart, Martinsburg, Elmendorf, and Charlotte as the Guard bases. The Active C-5Ms are at Dover and Travis (18 each), and Westover and Lackland have 8 each as reserve bases)

Do you happen to know which C-17s have been transferred to the 911th now?

So far, I've only caught 96-0001 and 02-1099.

89-1189 (loaned to March) (#5)
93-0601 (first one)
96-0001 (#2)
02-1099 (#3)
02-1101 (#4)

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Are you in the 436th or the 512th?

Former 436th. I'm retired out now; but still in the loop.

RJMAZ wrote:
I'm not sure how much the freight loads fluctuates but I'm positive there is enough to keep a dozen 747-8F's freighters in constant use. Or even just a couple dozen KC-46's without inflight refueling capability would be good. It has all the military comms already inbuilt


The USAF already contracts out cargo missions to Atlas, Kalitta, and Polar on a regular basis. It is more cost effective to have a company like that maintain their own jets versus having the USAF buy them and maintain them. The fact is, the USAF maintenance standards ground planes for stupid stuff alot of the time. Commercial airliners will fly with a dent in a slat, or a malfunctioning avionics issue that has a back up to it that works. One of the things that drove me nuts with the C-5 is if something like that came up, it was immediately NMC and had to be fixed right then and there to be airworthy again. There are sometimes 3 to 4 redundancies in a system, but if one fails, the plane is grounded for it rather than carrying on until it gets back to home station...so it sits downrange waiting for another jet to bring parts for 4 days and they wonder why they don't have enough airlift.

I'm really surprised Boeing didn't propose C-46A's as an option in the past. But then again, they are several years behind schedule as is, and until they can get caught up, I don't see them doing anything to that regard.
 
User avatar
Runway28L
Posts: 1149
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2017 7:35 pm

Re: Did C-17 production end too soon after all ?

Wed Nov 07, 2018 5:45 am

Galaxy5007 wrote:
89-1189 (loaned to March) (#5)
93-0601 (first one)
96-0001 (#2)
02-1099 (#3)
02-1101 (#4)

Thank you for the info!
Greetings from KPIT! Check out my photos here: https://www.airliners.net/search?user=45 ... teAccepted
 
bunumuring
Posts: 2444
Joined: Wed Jan 15, 2014 2:56 pm

Re: Did C-17 production end too soon after all ?

Wed Nov 07, 2018 6:01 am

Hey guys,
I remember a Boeing proposal decades ago for 747-400Fs (designated C-19s I seem to remember...) to be purchased by the USAF to supplement a reduced buy of C-17s, due to issues at the time with the latter. Obviously nothing came out of it!
Cheers,
Bunumuring
I just wanna live while I'm alive!
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 2538
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

Re: Did C-17 production end too soon after all ?

Wed Nov 07, 2018 2:04 pm

Galaxy5007 wrote:
I'm really surprised Boeing didn't propose C-46A's as an option in the past. But then again, they are several years behind schedule as is, and until they can get caught up, I don't see them doing anything to that regard.


It's more that the USAF is not interested. The delay with the KC-46 are related to wiring and fueling boom. If the Air Force wanted a straight up cargo plane, then Boeing can get those planes delivered relatively quickly as they are still building them for the package carriers.

Don't forget, if the AF wanted a new cargo plane in the vein of the 767, they would have to competitively bid that out as well. And we all know where that's going to lead.

bt
Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
 
User avatar
kanban
Posts: 3890
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:00 am

Re: Did C-17 production end too soon after all ?

Wed Nov 07, 2018 4:04 pm

today Boeing announced the Long Beach plant property is up for sale... basically a nail in the coffin of the "what if...." crowd although the similar sale of the 757 production area hasn't stopped the "what if.... " crowd there
 
tommy1808
Posts: 9382
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: Did C-17 production end too soon after all ?

Wed Nov 07, 2018 4:06 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
C-17's should be rolling off an assembly line in Europe right now instead of the A400M.

The US government, Boeing and the USAF should have pushed harder for the C-17 to win the Europe airlift role. It would have had a zero dollar development cost making it a no brainer.

....

Lockheed would have sold more C-130J's to Europe as a result for the light tactical role.


In other words: the two biggest A400M customers should have bought not one, but two aircraft types unsuitable to their tactical demands?
If off the line, it would have been the An-70, the only other type close to demand.

Best regards
Thomas
This Singature is a safe space......
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 1727
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: Did C-17 production end too soon after all ?

Wed Nov 07, 2018 4:12 pm

bunumuring wrote:
Hey guys,
I remember a Boeing proposal decades ago for 747-400Fs (designated C-19s I seem to remember...) to be purchased by the USAF to supplement a reduced buy of C-17s, due to issues at the time with the latter. Obviously nothing came out of it!
Cheers,
Bunumuring


Yes, Sen. Scoop Jackson (D-Boeing) inserted the order for 747-200F in the military appropriations bill in probably 1981 or 82. Scoop was from Washington state and old style liberal Cold Warrior but represented Boeing. The USAF didn’t want them and was going to assign them to the NY ANG, then commanded by PAA pilots. Scoop died and the C-5B order was signed shortly thereafter.

Pallet movers for the USAF is a loser, too expensive.

GF
 
User avatar
Phosphorus
Posts: 349
Joined: Tue May 16, 2017 11:38 am

Re: Did C-17 production end too soon after all ?

Wed Nov 07, 2018 5:31 pm

kanban wrote:
today Boeing announced the Long Beach plant property is up for sale... basically a nail in the coffin of the "what if...." crowd although the similar sale of the 757 production area hasn't stopped the "what if.... " crowd there


Am I correct in remembering that the tooling was being put up for auction long ago, more or less simultaneously with the last frame rolling off the assembly line?
AN4 A40 L4T TU3 TU5 IL6 ILW I93 F50 F70 100 146 ARJ AT7 DH4 L10 CRJ ERJ E90 E95 DC-9 MD-8X YK4 YK2 SF3 S20 319 320 321 332 333 343 346 722 732 733 734 735 73G 738 739 744 74M 757 767 777
Ceterum autem censeo, Moscovia esse delendam
 
User avatar
kanban
Posts: 3890
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:00 am

Re: Did C-17 production end too soon after all ?

Wed Nov 07, 2018 7:00 pm

Phosphorus wrote:
kanban wrote:
today Boeing announced the Long Beach plant property is up for sale... basically a nail in the coffin of the "what if...." crowd although the similar sale of the 757 production area hasn't stopped the "what if.... " crowd there


Am I correct in remembering that the tooling was being put up for auction long ago, more or less simultaneously with the last frame rolling off the assembly line?


yes... but that hasn't stopped the "what if" factor
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1013
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Did C-17 production end too soon after all ?

Wed Nov 07, 2018 7:38 pm

tommy1808 wrote:
In other words: the two biggest A400M customers should have bought not one, but two aircraft types unsuitable to their tactical demands?

The recent puchase of C-130J's is proof that the A400M is too big for the low end of the tactical role.

The U.K's purchase of C-17's is proof the A400M is not big enough to cover the strategic role.

Germany and Frances use of NATO's C-17's is proof the A400M is not big enough for the strategic role.

Europe needed two aircraft sizes they could not afford two programs.

The U.K now operates three types the C-130J, A400M and C-17. There is no mission the A400M can do that couldn't be handled by the C-130 or C-17. If they had to cut one type and all three aircraft were in production we all known what they would choose.

France, Germany also operate the C-130 and plan to keep the Hercules beside the A400M. So there would be no increase in the number of aircraft types.

What is even more shocking is you could purchase one C-17 and one C-130J for far less than two A400M's. More versatility, more total lift for less cost.
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 1727
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: Did C-17 production end too soon after all ?

Wed Nov 07, 2018 9:35 pm

Heck, one of Lockheed’s proposals to counter the C-17 was a new production C-5 and they’d throw in a C-130J for essentially free. The C-17 was new and “sexy”; but a C-5 could do any C-17 load over greater distances and carry lots of loads the C-17 couldn’t carry due to size. BUT, in austere fields where ramp space and a MAC thing called MOG (maximum aircraft on ground) were issues, the C-17 was better—took up less space and needed less turning room. The C-5 could even do the off-prepared surface ops.

GF
 
Noray
Posts: 60
Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2018 4:28 am

Re: Did C-17 production end too soon after all ?

Thu Nov 08, 2018 1:41 am

RJMAZ wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:
In other words: the two biggest A400M customers should have bought not one, but two aircraft types unsuitable to their tactical demands?

The recent puchase of C-130J's is proof that the A400M is too big for the low end of the tactical role.

The limited number they purchased is proof that the low end of the tactical role isn't most important.

RJMAZ wrote:
The U.K's purchase of C-17's is proof the A400M is not big enough to cover the strategic role.

Germany and Frances use of NATO's C-17's is proof the A400M is not big enough for the strategic role.

Again, Europe needs only a limited number of these.

RJMAZ wrote:
Europe needed two aircraft sizes they could not afford two programs.

Maybe even three sizes are needed. Fortunately, two of these already existed and the third one has now been developed as well.

RJMAZ wrote:
There is no mission the A400M can do that couldn't be handled by the C-130 or C-17.

Not true. Which of these two would have taken a 22 ton excavator to the airport of Palu damaged by a tsunami. The load was too heavy for a C-130, and the airport wasn't usable by larger aircraft. This is just one example for a range of missions that becomes possible with the A400M.

RJMAZ wrote:
What is even more shocking is you could purchase one C-17 and one C-130J for far less than two A400M's.

That's a populist claim that you often hear, but it doesn't factor in the taxes and duties that return to the A400M client states, as the aircraft are built within their own economies. Neither does it take into account the fact that a new capability has been created in Europe that is there to stay.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 9382
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: Did C-17 production end too soon after all ?

Thu Nov 08, 2018 6:04 am

RJMAZ wrote:
The recent puchase of C-130J's is proof that the A400M is too big for the low end of the tactical role.


Nope, the C130 was even unsuitable when the C160 was made. France operated both types still, because they also had missions the C160 couldn´t do

The U.K's purchase of C-17's is proof the A400M is not big enough to cover the strategic role.


UK´s purchase of A400M is proof that neither the C130 nor the C17 are suitable for the A400M role.

Germany and Frances use of NATO's C-17's is proof the A400M is not big enough for the strategic role.

Europe needed two aircraft sizes they could not afford two programs.


Yup, and that is why you have a bunch of COTS aircraft flying around alongside the A400M.

There is no mission the A400M can do that couldn't be handled by the C-130 or C-17.


Good luck lifting a Puma or a VBCI with an C130, or getting those, outside of emergencies, to a CBR4 field with the C17, as it is practically at its limit with an CBR8 field. The A400M lands 30tons on a CBR6 field 40 times before the field needs fixing, the C17 goes to a CBR8 field once or twice before the pioneers need to get their heavy equipment out.

Like it or not, the A400M sits in a very unique capability slot, that both France and Germany had demand for (not sure about the other partners), if you don´t have that requirement it is much to expensive, if you have it it is the only game in town. Putting ~twice the weight on the same number of wheels or half the weight on 1/3 the wheels ain´t without consequences.

best regards
Thomas
This Singature is a safe space......
 
mxaxai
Posts: 699
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 7:29 am

Re: Did C-17 production end too soon after all ?

Thu Nov 08, 2018 7:36 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
C-17's should be rolling off an assembly line in Europe right now instead of the A400M.

The US government, Boeing and the USAF should have pushed harder for the C-17 to win the Europe airlift role. It would have had a zero dollar development cost making it a no brainer.

Ironically, the USAF could buy some A400M's right now, delivery tomorrow, at a zero dollar development cost. Or the C-2, for that matter. Should be a real no-brainer, right? Far cheaper than reactivating C-17 production. They could even roll off a US assembly line ...

Luckily, the KC-46 already features a main deck cargo door. Probably the cheapest and simplest way to transport any palletized cargo around the world (for the USAF). Just order an extra dozen or two.
There also are several 747-400F sitting in the desert. A330 P2F conversions should be pretty cheap too. Both options could be leased to civilian operators in peacetime, like the RAF Voyager fleet, to save even more money. I really don't see the urgent need for more (very expensive) C-17.
 
JohnM
Posts: 391
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2001 12:35 pm

Re: Did C-17 production end too soon after all ?

Fri Nov 09, 2018 8:31 pm

I'm retired now but to talk to my former C-17 and C-5 comrades. The late block C-17s that Dover got have been very good airplanes, easy to fix, and don't break much. They fly the hell out of them. The C-5s are a different matter. I was involved heavily in C-5 legacy, AMP and the M model. The M has good performance, which is excellent. It is still a maintenance intensive airplane, which required lots of manning. Some systems that did poorly with the legacy C-5 were improved with the M model, but other systems that were anvil reliable on legacy C-5s are horrible with the M. The engine guys on C-5s are working less, but everyone else, not so much.

My theory is that the AF is tired of the huge manning (and costs) required for the C-5, and would rather put the resources toward the C-17. I think it is crazy to put a handful of C-17s at McGuire, and do the same thing at Dover, but maybe this is to allow a larger area to recruit reservists for these units. Once again manning has been an issue for years in aircraft maintenance.

I was an orginal C-17 hater. Now I think more should have been built, put in proper storage, and now used. Some early C-17s are getting older, and flown pretty hard. However building new seems like a bad idea, too late for that.
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 1727
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: Did C-17 production end too soon after all ?

Fri Nov 09, 2018 8:42 pm

Other than things like the wings, what was “anvil reliable” on an A/B model? 18 years and I spent a lot of time pounding the ramp waiting for the crew bus back to the Q.

GF
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 1727
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: Did C-17 production end too soon after all ?

Fri Nov 09, 2018 9:27 pm

At one time, the 10 ten maintenance snags accounted for something like 11% of the delays. IOW, everything was a problem.

GF
 
texl1649
Posts: 700
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:38 am

Re: Did C-17 production end too soon after all ?

Fri Nov 09, 2018 10:16 pm

C-5's are great planes, but really, there's no fixing them long term. The sooner a reliable replacement can be sourced, the better. My theory is this has tainted the USAF attitude about large K/C aircraft, partly responsible for the delay in EIS for the KC46, and perhaps over-engineering/testing of the C-17/C-130J.
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 1727
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: Did C-17 production end too soon after all ?

Sat Nov 10, 2018 1:33 am

The M model fixed most of the performance issues and, for a time, maintenance issues. USAF Maintenance is more the issue than the plane.

GF
 
JohnM
Posts: 391
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2001 12:35 pm

Re: Did C-17 production end too soon after all ?

Sat Nov 10, 2018 1:34 am

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Other than things like the wings, what was “anvil reliable” on an A/B model? 18 years and I spent a lot of time pounding the ramp waiting for the crew bus back to the Q.

GF


A good example is the legacy PACS servo. Our shop would change one every year or so. The new and "improved" AMP servo has brushes (DC motor, used to be brushless AC) with an approx 600 hour life before failure. In the first 2 years of AMP jets (same part remains on the M) we changed about 180 of them. The pitch PACS servo is kind of a pain the the ass to replace also. We got feedback that EVERY PACS servo we removed tested bad at the depot, which is amazing. Keep in mind the shitty motor in the PACS servo is the same one in the autopilot and autothrottle servos. I could go on and on.

The control wheel hub assy also required almost constant tweaking and adjustment to get the damn thing to pass an IBIT or M-TEST. That is a legacy part from the A/B that worked very well on the legacy jets, but while easy to do, became an almost daily chore on AMP planes and M models.

The ultimate insult to the C-5 is that old school AFIN people will do almost anything to be sent to the C-17 side. I know some very experienced C-5 troops who made back door deals to go C-17 after some sort of FTD instructor duty or something away from the flightline. Lots of ELEN people are not happy with the M also, and want to defect to C-17 world. I could not escape after 36 years...
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 1727
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: Did C-17 production end too soon after all ?

Sat Nov 10, 2018 1:47 am

Other than the hubs occasionally, I don’t remember many PACS problems. Once on a local, the pilots were having troubles with touchdowns. They said it feel right, I took the plane and sure it didn’t feel right. After landing, I could put the yoke forward or aft and it stayed there. Both Elev Feel computers were out, unannunciated. I was Westover and had, at the time, decent mx and great ops/mx relationship.


GF
 
JohnM
Posts: 391
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2001 12:35 pm

Re: Did C-17 production end too soon after all ?

Sat Nov 10, 2018 2:05 am

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
The M model fixed most of the performance issues and, for a time, maintenance issues. USAF Maintenance is more the issue than the plane.

GF


Manning is poor. The tech data is poor. The new systems are very quirky. The Lockheed that made the B model is dead and gone. I was told first hand by a LM avionics engineer (this is during AMP mod timeline) that another engineer, the lead flight control guy called him. The flight control guy asked "What is the VFU?" (variable feel unit) The AFCS engineer had to explain that system to him because almost nobody at LM was there from when the planes were built. They just don't have the corporate knowledge to do good things for the plane on the first try. Contrast to when the B model came out. The B was for the most part ready to hit the ground running and was an improvement from day one. The old A model guys were still employed by Lockheed at that time. If a bad mod is put into the plane, the poor maintainers are stuck with trying to make it work forever. Case in point dewars and the fire suppression system.

Also keep in mind Dover and Travis train the new 3 levels out of tech school. They get somewhat spun up, then lots of them get orders to staff the enroute bases, or get out. New batch of FNGs show up, repeat process. You guys go to Lackland for training, lots of training involved before that. We try to actually fix things while training new 3 levels and reservists while operating a for real airlift operation. Specialist 3 levels have never set foot on a C-5 or had any C-5 specific systems instruction before getting here. They have a little bit of B-1, C-5, C-17, B-2, C-130 crap thrown at them in tech school, and are mostly deer in the headlights at their first base. Also while AMP was in progress, and the same thing with the M, we couldn't get parts for the new systems. We started to cann parts early in the game, which is a bad deal.

Hey at least the M models of today are quiet. According to my former comrades the C-5s are not really flying much, while they fly the wings off the C-17s. Do 17 drivers talk shit to C-5 flyers because lack of flying time? I'd like to know how many hours a high time C-17 has currently...
 
JohnM
Posts: 391
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2001 12:35 pm

Re: Did C-17 production end too soon after all ?

Sat Nov 10, 2018 2:15 am

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Other than the hubs occasionally, I don’t remember many PACS problems. Once on a local, the pilots were having troubles with touchdowns. They said it feel right, I took the plane and sure it didn’t feel right. After landing, I could put the yoke forward or aft and it stayed there. Both Elev Feel computers were out, unannunciated. I was Westover and had, at the time, decent mx and great ops/mx relationship.


GF

My opinion, and others, is that Westover is the premier operation at this time. Less turnover and things seem to work pretty well for them. I do think they did have an advantage of not being a "test wing" like we felt at Dover. We always hoped that somebody else would get the new stuff first, but it never worked out that way.

The PACS stuff was mostly caught during M-TEST/ IBIT that we had to do for other maint reasons or pre flights. We change a VIA for example, required to do a M-TEST, then PACS fails.
 
JohnM
Posts: 391
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2001 12:35 pm

Re: Did C-17 production end too soon after all ?

Sat Nov 10, 2018 2:28 am

I think the Travis guys were pretty sharp also. During AMP mod, a Travis jet at Dover couldn't pass an MTEST or something. Minor issue, but wouldn't pass the test. A Dover plane was given back to us with similar issue, we'd have to struggle to fix the newly installed system, which usually wasn't easy, because the AMP guys couldn't fix it in the first place. Travis told the AMP guys they wouldn't accept the jet unless everything passed after AMP mod, so they just gave it to us to sort out. Not like we didn't have our own issues to fix...At least Travis put their foot down, something we didn't do.
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 1727
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: Did C-17 production end too soon after all ?

Sat Nov 10, 2018 3:49 am

I left the base in 2005, coming with conversion in late ‘87. Sometime in the late nineties, Carl Arndt (L-Georgia Chief engineer and Mr. C-5) visited all the C-5 baes to listen to crews and maintainers. Interesting discussions about torque decks, tie boxes and why was there water pooled in the chine coves. Also, why were they having problems with crew entrance door flooring. Then I showed him what bag drag looked like.

GF
 
jagraham
Posts: 588
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2016 11:10 pm

Re: Did C-17 production end too soon after all ?

Sat Dec 01, 2018 10:10 pm

Two things regarding transport force levels . .
1) The "official" numbers are from the Air Force, which has always been tepid about the transport mission (it supports the Army, after all), but fiercely fights any fixed wing flying by the Army. When Saddam invaded Kuwait, we had to play paper tiger as it took 6 months to move sufficient forces to Saudi Arabia. Good luck if anything pops off in Korea, or Taiwan, etc. Congress needs to put a bottom line requirement on Transport Command and let them say how much airlift will be needed to move a force of a certain size in a certain time.
2) As for C-390, after what the Air Force did with the C27s, Congress would chop the heads of any Air Force personnel who came up to the Hill with a proposal for a new small airlifter. And rightfully so.

Afterthought - A 744ERF can take a C17 load twice as far for the same fuel. The 748F is even better. While I enjoy seeing C5s and C17s on approach to HNL, it pains me knowing that a 748F can go nonstop across the Pacific for about the same fuel. And 100 knots faster. No knock against tactical transports, but what makes them good at getting material close to the front makes them not so good at flying long distances between airports. 747Fs would get that job done for less, and save those C17 and especially C5 flight hours for when they are really needed. The Air Force can keep pilots qualified on two aircraft if they want to . .
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 1727
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: Did C-17 production end too soon after all ?

Sat Dec 01, 2018 10:59 pm

jagraham wrote:
Two things regarding transport force levels . .
1) The "official" numbers are from the Air Force, which has always been tepid about the transport mission (it supports the Army, after all), but fiercely fights any fixed wing flying by the Army. When Saddam invaded Kuwait, we had to play paper tiger as it took 6 months to move sufficient forces to Saudi Arabia. Good luck if anything pops off in Korea, or Taiwan, etc. Congress needs to put a bottom line requirement on Transport Command and let them say how much airlift will be needed to move a force of a certain size in a certain time.
2) As for C-390, after what the Air Force did with the C27s, Congress would chop the heads of any Air Force personnel who came up to the Hill with a proposal for a new small airlifter. And rightfully so.

Afterthought - A 744ERF can take a C17 load twice as far for the same fuel. The 748F is even better. While I enjoy seeing C5s and C17s on approach to HNL, it pains me knowing that a 748F can go nonstop across the Pacific for about the same fuel. And 100 knots faster. No knock against tactical transports, but what makes them good at getting material close to the front makes them not so good at flying long distances between airports. 747Fs would get that job done for less, and save those C17 and especially C5 flight hours for when they are really needed. The Air Force can keep pilots qualified on two aircraft if they want to . .


Well, more accurately, Desert Shield to Storm took about four months from a standing start with little force structure in SWA. Airlift supports the Navy and AF as much as the Army—fighter wings move on airlifters and Navy ships and SEAL teams need resupply. Army units are very heavy—90%+ move by ship. Moving tanks and IFVs by air would be very expensive and take as long. Airlift of Army items is mostly high-value stuff like Patriot batteries which were a prominent C-5 load. Also, the initial “elements of xxx” were a big Desert Shield, planting a flag. Tanks and IFV were airlifted to Mog after Les Aslin screwed up denying the forces armor, then had to airlift it into country after the Ranger disaster.

GF

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Slafter and 12 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos