Raf C-17
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
South Bound, following the car lease analogy, wasn't there a bit of a fuss when it was used for some off road driving in hot and sandy places?
God Forbid. If it ain't broke...
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: firmly on dry land
Age: 81
Posts: 1,541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flying clothing to type is not a new thing.
E3 oxygen system is a pigs compared with the British masks.
The RNZAF had two completely different sets of AEA. The guys flying the StrikeMaster wore RAF kit top to toe even making the flying boots in NZ. The A4 jocks wore US kit.
IIRC the same applied to 74 Sqn F4J.
The argument is that the AEA was designed to function in the aircraft - pocket snagging, toe crunching etc.
Wonder what gloves they wear?
E3 oxygen system is a pigs compared with the British masks.
The RNZAF had two completely different sets of AEA. The guys flying the StrikeMaster wore RAF kit top to toe even making the flying boots in NZ. The A4 jocks wore US kit.
IIRC the same applied to 74 Sqn F4J.
The argument is that the AEA was designed to function in the aircraft - pocket snagging, toe crunching etc.
Wonder what gloves they wear?
Last edited by Wader2; 6th Dec 2007 at 12:47.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Lancashire
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
£130m includes the upgrade of the existing 4 frames to block 19 I believe.
As for bog standard; because they were leased the MoD were forbidden by Boeing and US DoD to make any significant alterations to the frames because the initial intention was for them to be blended into the USAF fleet at the end of the lease period.
This nice little loop-hole also forbid QQ from getting involved, thus the frames could be brought 'online' in record time. From signature to in service in 366 days iirc.
The limitations imposed on the operation of the a/c were not hard and fast rules, and were relaxed significantly as events and expectations progressed. In fact I am led to believe the USAF were more than happy with things that were done with UK frames because it allowed them to hasten their own task diversification processes.
As for bog standard; because they were leased the MoD were forbidden by Boeing and US DoD to make any significant alterations to the frames because the initial intention was for them to be blended into the USAF fleet at the end of the lease period.
This nice little loop-hole also forbid QQ from getting involved, thus the frames could be brought 'online' in record time. From signature to in service in 366 days iirc.
The limitations imposed on the operation of the a/c were not hard and fast rules, and were relaxed significantly as events and expectations progressed. In fact I am led to believe the USAF were more than happy with things that were done with UK frames because it allowed them to hasten their own task diversification processes.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Didcot
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
C-17 Naming
The IPT, having some foresight, reserved all the ZZ17* series at the time of the initial lease. Hence, despite the golf buggy, I suspect ZZ175 and ZZ176 will be the next frame names (officially at least).
Hellbound
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Blighty
Posts: 554
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bah Humbug on the naming front!
As for commonality with the US Fleet, I can't see that changing no matter what QQ say. It would just be outrageously expensive to do anything but maintain and operate our aircraft in the US-way. I figure we will be flying the US standard of aircraft to US procedures for some time to come. Personally I don't have an issue with this and can see no reason to want to change.
As for commonality with the US Fleet, I can't see that changing no matter what QQ say. It would just be outrageously expensive to do anything but maintain and operate our aircraft in the US-way. I figure we will be flying the US standard of aircraft to US procedures for some time to come. Personally I don't have an issue with this and can see no reason to want to change.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Oop North (where the beer is best)
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They Comp'd me back the other day and the comment from the Captain was that 'the reason these have been so successful is that QQ haven't been allowed anywhere near them. When QQ said they'd have to trial UK flying suits with them, the powers that be said "Okay, we'll use US kit."'
Superb guys, one and all, turned themselves inside out to get us home, and were only hindered by ASCOT. Nothing but praise for them.
Superb guys, one and all, turned themselves inside out to get us home, and were only hindered by ASCOT. Nothing but praise for them.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 806
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ha ! Real man's AAR..........
I used to agree on the probe / boom issue but now I think anyone that's done Night KC-135 receiving may differ. That seperates the men from the boys .....
I used to agree on the probe / boom issue but now I think anyone that's done Night KC-135 receiving may differ. That seperates the men from the boys .....