the airforce times ( i wish i could give ya the site address but ya need a subscription ) stated the the AirForce might have gotten a real lemon when we got the C-17, after all was said and done the article stated that the reliability rates where heavely doctored ( like changeing take off times, backing up missions with 2 spare aircraft and changing the tail #'s if one took off and even that didnt help sometimes). the actual rate is around 58% as opposed to what the C-17 community and AirForce has stated at 97% also the planes gear has numerous problems even as severe as collapsing just when taxiing around. also their range and cargo capacity is so very limited. its unable to land on unprepared dirt fields ( that was a big selling point ) a bunch of them are now restricted from flying over seas because of their life raft system ( it doesnt work ) and they have a software problem that sometimes causes the entire FDS and EFAS systems to go blank when in flight ( how would you like that, no flight instruments ). wow  

Live on C141!!!!!!!!

Nothing can beat the reliable C-130!

The C-17 has been touted as having a great Fully Mission Capable (FMC) rate, as compared to the C-5, but I have always said wait until you get a few thousand hours on these airframes, and the FMC rate will drop. I also read the article in Air Force Times, It didn't suprise me at all! Part of the problem is the lack of experience that the C-17's have at their home station. I have been told that most of their experienced personnel are always deployed overseas, and the newbies are stuck at Charleston with no clue! Couple that with all the electronics that thing is packed with, and you have trouble waiting to happen. I really hope to see the C-5 modernization go through, and soon!
Long live the C-5!!!!
Brian

All is accurate except the dirt strip. I've seen this done, and it's impressive.

yeah they where allowed to land in dirt strips initially but now they are restricted from doing it as stated be fore.

Galaxy5

A friend of mine stationed with me at Andersen AFB, Guam told our shift one evening that his father, a civilian employee at Edwards AFB, CA, working on certification of the C-17A told his son in a phone conversation or letter to never ever fly on the C-17 when it entered service if he could. He worked in with the Air Force Test Center there, specifically aircraft structures testing, a major duty of his was to X-ray the airframes of new production aircraft and prototypes of proposed new aircraft to see if they met the manufacturer's specs and match up what they promised.

He told his son that the C-17's wings were riddled with cracks. A-la C-5A Galaxy from the 70s' style and somewhat reminiscent of the C-141 outboard wing problems after the Gulf War wore those airplanes out. I found this to be alarming news, I also wondered what took the AF so long to get the C-17 into service as well.

So with the AF Times article in mind, this information I remember said as far back as the 1992-94 timeframe matches up and starts to fit. I'm not surprised. Thanks for the "head's up"!

MAC

I'm surprised the military would even admit to mishandling taxpayer money...

Uh, what airlines fly the C-17. I want to make sure I don't get on one.

Skippy

Um, Skippy, no airlines fly the C-17. It's strictly a military aircraft (but not for too much longer if Boeing decides to civilianize it). Besides, it's a freighter anyway.

i hope nobody buys it especially with all the problems its having. besides what company in their right mind would?  

You fail to mention that all these things are SOMEBODY's OPINION! Including yours. Posts like this have no point, all you've offered is a bunch of "facts" supposedly derived from a credible source. Eitherway, the information you've given is biased and based soley on your opinion. Granted, the aircraft has had numerous problems, many of which MDC was forced to fix out of their own pocket (one of the biggest reasons they went under). However, this post is just a useless attack. For the sake of everyone please stop.

Just my opinion- I could be wrong.

You are WRONG... It is proven that the C-17 is garbage.

you are wrong. those facts where from the airfoce times news paper. and they are well know in the airforce community. they are nobodys opinions they where factual conclusions. if you have a subscription go to the airforce times web site and read it for yourself.  )

It is proven that the C-17 is garbage.
Back up your information, Boeing757fan. You can't just make inflammatory statements like that without solid proof.

you are wrong. those facts where from the airfoce times news paper. and they are well know in the airforce community.

Perhaps the problem here is inadequate funding. Who knows? But I have problems with someone who doesn't care enough to post without 19 grammatical errors in one post.

Corrected:
You are wrong, those facts were from the Air Force Times Newspaper, and they are well known in the Air Force community. They are nobody's opinions, they are factual conclusions. If you have a subscription, go to the Air Force Times web site and read if for yourself.

Everyone, read this: http://www.af.mil/news/Oct1995/n19951027_1185.html

I have to agree with MD-90 and FLY DC JETS on this one, a lot of people are quick to jump on the 'slander the C-17' bandwagon. The airplane hasn't even been fully delivered and Boeing757fan proclaims that:

It is proven that the C-17 is garbage.

I hope he shares his proof with Congress so no more taxpayer money is wasted. I don't proclaim to have the absolute truth but I do know that there have been a lot of critics of the C-5 Galaxy over the years, and I suspect that Galaxy5 and B747 will agree with me that the airplane has proven its worth. Give the C-17 time also.

As for the potential for a civillian version of the -17, I guess there is a lot of heavy politics (and economics) involved and as I stated before, only time will tell.

Boeing757fan... watch yerself. back that up and maybe everyone wouldn't be jumping your ass. I think the C-17 is having the same problems a lot of planes have about 10 years after development, when some of the design flaws come out. As PW4084 points out, the same thing happened with the C-5. Some minor changes were made,a nd now they are solidly some of the best planes in the world. I'm confident that the same will be true of the C-17.

-Meister

I do admit that I am a bit turned off to the C-17. There has been so much hype and propaganda surrounding the C-17 in the Air Force community.

Example #1: When the 737 that was carrying Secretary Ron Brown and others that crashed in 1996, they puposely flew them to Dover in a C-17, when a C-5 was closer, and made us move all the C-5's on the Dover ramp out of camera's view, because Pres. Clinton came to Dover to do a speach, and they didn't want the camera's to see the C-5's so they could show America that their money was not wasted on the C17.

Example #2: I heard that they swaped missions to bring home the victims of the Saudia Arabia barracks bombing in 1997? A C-5 was already there, but they flew in a C-17 from Germany to bring them home, once again for the publics perspective.

Also I have 3 years of experience in the En-route environment, and have had to see these things sit on the ground for days, because of little problems. I agree that given time it may come to fruitation.

When the Airforce was looking to replace the C-141, I hear, ( and granted I have no official source, just Air Force people talking) that Lockheed offered 1 C-5, and 1 C-141 for the price of one C-17. Keep in mind that both Lockheed's were going to be updated versions. Instead they opted for new technology that hadn't been proven.
I think alot of it is politically motivated, since C-17's are built in CA, and we know that they have more seats in the House of Rep's than any other state.
Well that's my 2 cents for know, since I realize that I have been rambling.
Brian

No matter how bad the C-17 supposedly is, it is still more reliable than a C-5. I've never seen a C-5 come to our base and not get stuck due to maintenance. Everytime a C-17 comes, it has no problems leaving. I'll take the C-17!

Where the C-5s and C-141s built in Georgia (like the C-130) or Burbank, CA (like the L-1011)?

The C-5 did have many problems, but I believe that most of them have been fixed. It still isn't a very reliable plane, but while it may be grounded during peacetime with, for example, a leaking hydraulic line, during wartime, since there's 4 hydraulic systems onboard, it'd fly the mission.

as for MD-90 your link is like 6yrs old, alot has happened since then. as soon as i get a hard copy of the report i can e-mail it to whom ever would like a copy. ( i hope my grammar is correct. i didnt realize this was an english class and not an aviation forum) C-5 reliability is sort of low right now that is true, its about 76-85% right now ( remember its 30 yrs old and all the funding for parts and such have been taken away due to the C-17) but thats better than 58%. i wouldnt mind it so much if they didnt spurt about the C-17 being the miracle save all airplane when in all actuallity it is a mediocre at best airlifter. as for B747s statements its true there has been so much politicing and propaganda it could make anyone sick. and remember when the C-17 came out MD said that this would be different from all other military aircraft being that it wouldnt have the growing problems as its predecessors because it was properly designed and tested. now we come to find out that it can hardly do what it was bought to do and is unreliable.

My link was one of the first that popped up when I searched the Air Force's website. I have no apologies for a 6 year old link.

And yes, it's annoying to read confusing posts.

You know what else is annoying, when you goto airshows expecting the C-17 to fly, but, they cannot even get off the ground. Thats annoying... 2-3 airshows that It was supposed to fly it didnt do to MECHANICAL PROBLEMS.

Not good, especially when there were 150.000+ people there.

How about naming those airshows where the C-17 didn't fly as scheduled? It flew quite well when I first saw it at Oshkosh '94.

ok ive now got a hard copy of two articles on the c-17 how do i put them on here?

Well, regardless of whats better the C17 or C5, their reliability and longevity pale in comparison with the 747-ANY-F or MD11F or A300-600F. I believe the USAF should have bought a civilian freighter. These are my unsubstantiated opinions subject to revision.

It just goes to show.... the C-5 rocks!!!!!!

As said before, civilian counterparts are NOT as capable as the C-5. More reliable? Yes, but the Air Force needs a plane able to carry loads so large it would make an MD-11 or 747 cry.There's the whole loading ramp issue I'm sure you're aware of. That is what applies to the C-130,141,and 17 as being better competitors. But what makes the C-5 stand out is it's big freak'in cargo bay. 37,000 Cu.Ft.! Try to imagine the problems you would enconter loading a 130,000lb. M-1 Abrhams on a 747. IF you somehow did magically get it up a super ramp, the cargo bay is'nt large enough to carry it. The Air Force needs not reliability, (thought that would be nice) it needs extraordinary ability, even at a cost, like reliability rates.

The Air Force does'nt haul pallets conveniently shaped to fit in the fuselage and weight next to nothing. The Air Force hauls whole tanks, mobile bridges, and helicopters. Hence the phrase OUTSIZE cargo. The aircraft even capable to carry outsize catrgo? C-17, C-5, An-124, An-225.

Aerotech makes a very good point.

As Aerotech states, military airlifters have different roles than commercial freighters. Hence, if a commercial MD-17 ever made it to production (highly questionable), it'd fit in the small niche of outsize cargo haulers. Companies like Lynden Air Cargo come to mind. Who knows though, if the USAF and Boeing convince Congress to facilitate the civillian C-17 program, maybe we'll see rows of Globemasters on commercial freight ramps....ready to be commandeered at the first sign of global trouble. If the US taxpayers make it worth their while, it could happen. It'll be interesting to follow this troubled/heralded airplane's fate.

It would be quite interesting to see the capabilities of the C-17 converted from the 463L palletization/rail system to standard airline/air freight container use.

Can one imagine what Airborne Express would do with custom made containers to fit the ramp and internal cube of that puppy? Holy Smokes! Airborne is known to custom-make all sorts of rollerized containers to use on DC-9s and DC-8s loaded through the passenger doors. I can imagine swimming pool sized containers used on a hypothetical Airborne MD-17. I guess it would have to come down to *cost*cost*cost* to make it all happen.

I'm not sure where the MD-17 stands with Boeing now. It's got great potential for missions like hauling outsize oil drilling equipment to places like Siberia, but for mainline cargo /overnite/same day ops pushing containers..it has to be skimpy in costs before freight carriers bite. Different mission there entirely.

Lockheed proposed the civilian L-500 version of the C-5A Galaxy to haul cars from Detroit to regional distribution centers. Earlier, the C-141 was offered as the L-400 (I'm not positive on the name but I think it was the "L-400"). Several carriers -did- order that one, including Flying Tigers and Seaboard World. But, later cancelled.

Using 1987 dollars on the C-141B, that thing cost almost $80000 per hour to fly around. ( I love the ole girl and loved flying and working on them, "Nothing like the sound of TF-33's in the morning.." (G), but they were expensive as hell too (G). Once budget cutting came down hard you began to see a lot more simulator time used versus flying "Rockbirds around McGuire" (G) That cost figure really makes you look hard before jumping to this route in freight hauling too.

So, the concept of using military airlifters in a civilian role has been -attempted but not fulfilled- before, it just hasnt followed through in the jet age.

Just a few more cents from me..

MAC

In every lifetime an astonishing thing will happen. I have to agree with MAC and the others on this one. The C-17 is just another example of the US military gone completely beserk. They're like kids on crack willing to sell their homes for another fleeting high. C-5, C-17, B-1, now probably the JSF and the F-22. Just money down the toilet and nothing to show for it.

Just what the hell kind of military scenario in the world today involves the C-17? If there is ever another conflict that requires a single M1 tank to "win" a battle, trust me, you'll get it there in plenty of time by putting it on a boat. Have problems in the wilds of Afghanistan? Just rain cluster bombs and Tomahawks for 2 months until the 80 tanks land by boat. The DOD lives and procures like it's 1965 and the Reds are jumping out of every closet. The world has changed but stupid projects like the C-17 prove that old habits die hard. Why not fix a 1000 schools instead?

MAC: My dad spent a lot of time in C-141s doing touch and gos and approaches at Norton in the reserves before things came to an end.  

While I admit I don't care for the C-17, I have to say that the USAF is in dire need of airlift capacity.
One thing I wish the military would do is use more "off the shelf" technology. Things like autopilot, and other avionics. Anytime the AirForce has used off the shelf stuff it has been completely sucessful like the KC-10A Extender (DC-10), C-9A Nightengale (DC-9), KC-135 (707). I say take proven technology and base it around your goals, instead of trying to come up with something else that does the samething, and costs millions to develope, and years to work through the teething problems.
Brian

I'm curious what percentage of the militarys airlift requirements are outsize and how much isn't. As far as the USAF not hauling palletized materiel, that odd. As Fedex according to AWAST 2001 Sourcebook was the 35th largest DOD contractor worth $356,221,000 of services rendered.

You implied "weight next to nothing" as to what a 747F carries as compared to the C5. The 747-400F carrries a payload approx 250,000lbs for 5000 miles at M.82-.94.
The C5 hauls approx 261,000lbs for 3000miles at M.77-.79.
The max gross weight of the 747-400F is actually greater than the C5. 875Klb (747-400F) vs 837klb for the C5.

FDXMech

Just to give some insight into the USAF cargo system.

The USAF uses the "463L" system of palletization on their aircraft when loads and mission call for their use which is quite common. The "463L" stands for the year and month they were incorporated into the AF inventory, it stands for "April 1963, Logistics" plain and simple. This was a revolutionary system adopted as there had been no uniform standard of palletization before, especially with earlier airlifters like the Douglas C-124 and C-133.

The pallets are made from aluminum with a balsa core inside, the pallet thickness is around 2 inches max I think, they measure 108" x 88", the cargo built on top can measure up to 96" (sometimes slightly higher depending on type of aircraft used) in height. They look like a large rectangular slab of aluminum with little teeth cutouts on each side. Quite similar in ways to commercial pallets used for belly and floor loaded cargo on 747s and other types (with those rinky-dink nets they use on them (G)

Cargo is built up and then netted down and secured with two side nets and one top net, these nets can handle 10000 lbs of weight with various G loads imposed on them. If the cargo is a large outsize piece, it's chained into the pallet with 10K capacity chains and devices.

The completed pallets are locked into the rail system using a series of detents that lock them into the rail system of the various airlifters the USAF has. These pallets can be "married" with couplers into various "pallet trains" for large shipments (called T-2's through T-5's (maybe even 6 pallets or T-6 if the Tunner 60K aircraft loader is used..I think it can handle T-6's).

Tiedown restraint criteria is dependent on various G forces assigned (lateral, vertical, horizontal). 25K chains and devices are available for large, outsize rolling stock that are usually chained directly into aircraft floor rings, these for equipment like "Deuce and a Half" vehicles, helicopters, aircraft engines on dollies, "bare-base" matting that is the replacement for WW2 era "PSP matting" the SeaBees used to establish airbases in the Pacific Theater.

This newer version essentially consists of huge slabs of reinforced metal and asphalt like coating that are put together like a puzzle to create an aircraft ramp and runway where none existed before. We used these "prefabricated air base jigsaw puzzles" to establish air bases in Eastern Turkey after the Gulf War with the Kurdish Refugee effort there. These runway and apron elements are a major B*TCH to handle BTW; extremely heavy and love to jam up on the universal-direction rollers located on the rear ramp of the C-5.(gotta love that pressure seal they like hitting there too). These are palletized on T-5/T-6 pallet trains and flown in using the C-5, probably the C-17 now, the C-141 was too small to handle them.

Anyway, it's a different system than what is conmonly used in the civilian sector and it's been proven to be quite effective, useful and utilitarian.

Regards
MAC

Does anyone know how many cargo ships there are available for the U.S. military? Most ships that come to America are foreign flagged nowadays, thanks to less restrictions placed upon them from places like Libya.

If the Middle East explodes into war, and it looks like it could by summer, we need to get equipment into there immediately. Religion can make people do some really dumb things, and we need (since we pledged to protect Israel when the state was formed) to be able to quickly get stuff there in a hurry if necessary. Most supplies can arrive by ship, but for there will always be a need for cargo aircraft.

Maybe we should just support Rossiya and buy 50 new An-124s.  

After seeing a pair of An-2s at Moontown, I wonder if they qualify as outsized cargo aircraft.

I do want to add to Mac_veterans comments.

The military style boards can be accomodated in civilian aircraft. I have seen them hauled on 737,737 and L-188 aircraft. They are also a complete pain in the behind manuver around an airplane if they are the slightest bit warped. Each one of the tabs the locks interface with will hang up on EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THE SIDE locks...Ask me how I know this.. 

The C-141 was designed with the exact same width and height that the C-130 had, just the length was changed. Originally this was designed for commonality. The problem is that communication and other special equiptment is often carried in shelters that are carried by duece and half or five ton trucks. I know that those trucks will not fit into either the 130 or the 141 with one of those equiptment shelters on the back. I am pretty sure that an expando van will not fit either. To haul them on those aircraft the shelter has to be dismounted from the truck, and then mounted on on a specal dolly. Needless to say this takes time and uses up space one the aircraft that could accomodate other cargo.

That is why the C-17 was designed with a much wider and taller cargo bay. Military equiptment has grown in size over the years and the aircraft that haul them need to be sized accordingly.

You kind of missed what I was trying to say. Take for example, a 747-400F. You can fill the fuselage with containers conformed to fit the interior.(And the C-5 has a wartime PAYLOAD capability of 400,00lbs. The books speak of peacetime regs.) While the C-5 can haul 2 Abrhams. These are too big and bulky to fit in the 747. And, as you pointed out,(although the DOD and USAF aren't the same) contracts with the DOD are the source for the pallets, while the helicopters ect. are for the airlifters. Just like during the Gulf War. A WHOLE bunch of 747s and DC-10s were used to do what they do best, take people (troops) to the Gulf. The C-5s spent that time hauling outsize cargo, while the people hauling was subbed out to civil contractors.

And as far as the weight. As I said the wartime payload is 400, but that's not important. During peacetime with the 261 restriction, the whole concept, as I said, is not about being efficient (like the range you pointed out), as the C-5 is not, but it's about SPECIALTY. A 747 cound never haul 4 Chinooks, or 2 M-1s, ect. There's 2 different missions. Civil cargo is kind of like a cattle truck. Effieient?Yes. Long range?Yes. Military airlift is like a dump truck. Efficient or long range? Not neccicarly. Able to hauls loads of exraordinary size? Yes. I hope this helps clear this up a little.

there is no way a 747 could replace a C-5 , it cant carry oversized cargo, it cant fly into airports where support equipment isnt available and download its cargo. the galaxy is designed to kneel and has large ramps and openings to accomodate all types of cargo that a traditional aircraft cant.

Keep in mind too, that range isnt really that much of a biggie- All military aircraft are equipped with inflight refueling capability... therfore extending their range to unlimited.

Not all military aircraft have air to air refueling......One exception is the P-3 Orion for example. Save the four that where built Iran.

Even then the aircraft can't stay up indefinatly. Endurance is limited by the engine oil.

The Guppy (based on A300s) owned by Airbus is good for outsize payloads as well, being I think the highest interior of any aircraft.

but you still couldnt use a guppy like a C-5, you can just drive a tank or other oversized equipment on a C-5 not so on a guppy.

The problem with just about all civilian equiptment, Especially anything that is a widebody is the excess of GSE that is needed at a landing site.

when the mods start on the C-5 ive heard rumors they are going to bump the MTOW to 850,000lbs peace time and 900,000 to 1,000,000 lbs war time loads.

Still the C-17 is better than the A400. The C-17 can actually fly, and isn't just a copied design

(A400 = Herky)

t>y

Aerotech's point about the differing nature of the mission of military transports vs civilian transports is a bit flaky in my opinion. Why should the size and weight of the load affect dispatch rates? The A300 Guppy is the biggest transporter in the world and it's reliability is as good as any airliner - if it wasn't, the Airbus production line would grind to a halt.

The C17 is an overcomplicated piece of shit expelled from the body of a corporation in it's death throes (McDD) funded by an unnecessary industrial-military complex justifying hideously big budgets of tax-payers money that should go towards pay rises for teachers and policemen etc. New military technology like this actually poses a threat to national security, cos sooner or later some idiot in the Pentagon (or White House) is going to cook up a conflict to put this stuff through it's paces (a la the Gulf War) and thereby make yet MORE enemies for what should be a likeable and popular country full of sweet and hospitable people (the USA) which instead is either despised or ridiculed.

The A300 Beluga, just like the 747, can't haul the loads the C-5 can. It's cargo bay is wide, but it's meant to haul fuselages-light weight. Once again, you could never get a tank into the Beluga. I mean, you could fill the fuselage with cotton-large volume-little weight. The only 4 aircraft that could fill the mission are the An-225, An-124, C-5 and C-17. Unfortunaely, all these aircraft are'nt the most reliable things flying. But a Porche is'nt the most reliable car-theres a trade. And the Guppy is'nt the largest transporter in the world, as the American and Rissian government can attest to.

Besides I heard somewhere once that if you where to fill a C-130 completely with ping pong balls that it would be over MWTO.

Cidajet....I have seen photos of them offloading the EH-101 helicopter at Fairbanks, AK for winter testing off of a Beluga. It took two very large cranes to get it out the door. Point being is that those cranes would be extra equiptment for the military to fly. By comparison a CH-47 or UH-60 can just be towed on or off.