C-17 Tour

[KenV]

For those interested, below are some links to a virtual tour of the C-17.

These are for T-1, the C-17 test aircraft, which was essentially a prototype. It was not built to production configuration so it is missing many items/systems (like the lavatory and crew rest bunks) and includes many items not in the production aircraft (like an upper deck test engineer station and an escape chute to enable the test engineers and test pilots to rapidly escape out the aircraft from the upper deck through the bottom of the aircraft while in flight.)

I'll be happy to field any questions.

C-17 Flight Deck View (http://www.nmusafvirtualtour.com/media/090/C-17%20Flight%20Deck%20View.html)

C-17 Forward Cargo Area (http://www.nmusafvirtualtour.com/media/090/C-17%20Forward%20Cargo%20Area.html)

C-17 Aft Cargo Area (http://www.nmusafvirtualtour.com/media/090/C-17%20Aft%20Cargo%20Area.html)

[Uncle Ginsters]

Thanks for posting Ken.

What's the big wheel device aft of the right Troop Door?

[VinRouge]

I suspect following the cable and the size of the pulley it may be an emergency cargo door or ramp closing device, probably to do with it being a development model. Landing with the cargo ramp and door could get tricky.

Pure guesswork, did the development model have a transfer pump fitted on the hyd system?

[Hueymeister]

Yes it does, for that very reason.

[KenV]

The test equipment on T-1 included an air data trailing drogue that hung from the top of the T-tail. The wheel is a device to reel the drogue in and out in flight. It was this installation that inspired a fuel drogue mounted at the top of the T tail for the tanker version that no one bought.

RE the hydraulic system questions: The C-17 has FOUR independent hydraulic systems. Each of the four systems is powered by two engine driven pumps, plus an electrically powered aux pump. So three pumps for each system. In addition the two inboard systems (systems 2 and 3) have a hydraulic motor/pump interconnect. Thus system 2 can be used to pressurize system 3 and vice versa. The C-17 also has a RAT to provide hydraulic power to system 3 in an emergency. T-1 had essentially the production configuration hydraulic system.

All four hydraulic system reservoirs are accessible from inside the cargo compartment, so hydraulic reservoirs can be topped off without support equipment and can even be done inflight in the event of an emergency.

[VinRouge]

RAT on sys 4 Ken :ok:

[Herod]

Makes me wish I was thirty years younger. I was lucky enough to fly the C130K in my RAF days, and this thing looks purposeful.

[AQAfive]

Perhaps someone could explain to me why Boeing thinks it is much better to have a full yoke on its civilian aircraft rather than the Airbus sidestick, but it's OK to have a joystick on the C17.

[tdracer]

Perhaps someone could explain to me why Boeing thinks it is much better to have a full yoke on its civilian aircraft rather than the Airbus sidestick, but it's OK to have a joystick on the C17.
Because Boeing didn't design the C-17 - it was developed and put into production by McDonnell Douglas pre-merger.

[cattletruck]

Courtesy of the Yanks I've had the real tour of the C17, thanks guys and hope to see you downunder in 2015 :ok:

I'm told the stick reduces fatigue and makes the beast a cinch to fly. Maybe there's a driver on these forums who could elaborate further.

And yes it's easy to confuse it for a Boeing as the instrument displays are similar.

[KenV]

Perhaps someone could explain to me why Boeing thinks it is much better to have a full yoke on its civilian aircraft rather than the Airbus sidestick, but it's OK to have a joystick on the C17.

1. The C-17 was a Douglas design, not a Boeing design. Boeing later bought McDonnel Douglas

2. Both Boeing and the former McDonnel Douglas folks are opposed to side stick controllers. Even their aircraft with a stick vs a yoke use a center stick and not a side stick. Side stick is a Lockheed/Airbus thing. Boeing wants the pilot to be able to fly the plane with either hand. Another reason is that Boeing is trying to minimize the retraining needed for a pliot to certify in the 737, 777, and 787. Airbus went to side stick with the A320 and everything since has been side stick for much the same reason.

[Hueymeister]

As a driver and teacher on the beast I can confirm that the stick is a great way to fly her. Left and right sticks are subtly differently shaped to ease their use, but she's a joy to fly...even in full mech mode..ie. no computer assistance.

[AQAfive]

Of course, should have realised that. It may be effective and good to use, but it does look a bit odd; there again I was only 'walk on freight'.

I remember during training on the 'pig', a certain pilot landing in a strong breeze checking out all 4 extremes of the yokes axis. He was sweating by the end of the landing run.

I guess a joystick would have been much easier.

[KenV]

Of course, should have realised that. It may be effective and good to use, but it does look a bit odd; there again I was only 'walk on freight'.

I remember during training on the 'pig', a certain pilot landing in a strong breeze checking out all 4 extremes of the yokes axis. He was sweating by the end of the landing run.

I guess a joystick would have been much easier.

A side stick does not necessarily make flight control less physically strenuous. Assuming the same fly by wire flight control system otherwise, using a yoke as the "input device" would be equally non strenuous as a side stick.

For the C-17 specifically, a center stick was mandatory. Unlike Airbus airliners, the C-17 has a "manual reversion" mode where the pilot controls the aircraft with old fashioned cables, pulleys, and push rods. That's just not possible with a side stick.

[Hueymeister]

And it flies quite nicely in full manual...albeit a tad twitchy in yaw..