C-17. Is it really that good?
Thread Starter
C-17. Is it really that good?
Just seen a documentary on the C-17. Seems to be the proverbial dog's gonads. Nice to see that someone seems to have the right tool for the job, even if it is only leased.
Is it really as good as the programme made out it to be?
Is it really as good as the programme made out it to be?
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: In the bar on the buffet.
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
3 Herc loads in one go! That's got to be good for Ops. All we've got to do now is get good old Geoff to buy it instead of leasing it - then we can use it to it's full potential. It also looks gucci which is a bonus!
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 1,777
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I met one of the C17 crew at RIAT at Cottesmore this year. He told me that they were not allowed to do any of the tactical stuff that makes the C17 so good - the Americans do not want us to cane the airframe, and since it is leased, they call the shots.
Great stuff or what? Who negotiated the lease, and is he going to be held accountable for this major restriction in our capability?
Great stuff or what? Who negotiated the lease, and is he going to be held accountable for this major restriction in our capability?
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It seems to have an extremely limited range when it has a max payload or even a normal load. Additionally has it been certified for Cat 2/3 yet?
[ 13 November 2001: Message edited by: Iceman49 ]
[ 13 November 2001: Message edited by: Iceman49 ]
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, 5 Herc loads. Carrying over 100,000lbs of freight direct 4500 miles perhaps not quite so limited. Max range over 5500 miles without refueling - we run out of crew duty before we run out of gas etc etc.
It is indeed the dogs bollox and does "exactly what its says on the packet". Shame the same can't be said of the J model. Have you got your yokes to fit back on yet?
PS C17 has always been Cat II.
It is indeed the dogs bollox and does "exactly what its says on the packet". Shame the same can't be said of the J model. Have you got your yokes to fit back on yet?
PS C17 has always been Cat II.
Don't want to deliberately turn this into another cynical debate about the lease decision, but is it true that by the time we've finished leasing these 4(?) we could have bought 8-ish outright, with all the support gear? Just a rumour, only asking!! 
Things are always worse than they seem!
Things are always worse than they seem!
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the packet said (but it was a long time ago):
a. Could carry more payload and equal bulk than the aircraft its replacing. Whoops.
b. Would be more efficient and fly higher. Haven't seen you at FL370.
c. Would be in service by 1998. Nearly.
d. Could land on rough strips. But isn't the prop too brittle?
e. Could drop paratroops???
f. Cockpit would be fully NVG compatible. Oh really.
g. Would have a big HUD to make up for other problems. Well, they got that one right..............
[ 16 November 2001: Message edited by: charliesbar ]
a. Could carry more payload and equal bulk than the aircraft its replacing. Whoops.
b. Would be more efficient and fly higher. Haven't seen you at FL370.
c. Would be in service by 1998. Nearly.
d. Could land on rough strips. But isn't the prop too brittle?
e. Could drop paratroops???
f. Cockpit would be fully NVG compatible. Oh really.
g. Would have a big HUD to make up for other problems. Well, they got that one right..............
[ 16 November 2001: Message edited by: charliesbar ]
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 105
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Given that the C-17 was a tried and tested platform when it arrived, then yes I’d hope it did do what it said on the packet. The J being a new design might be expected to be late and have some problems, especially given the certification process a new ac has to go through.
However, the J has emerged as a very capable ac and despite what the rumour mill pushes out the tactical trials are going well. The boys involved are really excited about the capabilities that the ac is going to give us. You are correct in one area though the flight deck is not fully NVG compatible – but very few microwaves are these days.
The packet said tactical airlift ac – which is what we got. In some circumstances a Mk 3 could carry more than a J, its MTOW being 5 tonnes higher (albeit with the same wing box and fatigue life as a Mk 1). However, at the high weights were talking about that advantage would most likely be negated by the mass of the fuel required with its older engines. The J’s airframe is not wildly different from a K but the engines are; consequently anywhere hot, high, short or contaminated (or even and if you like) is not an issue for the J and this is where it’s real value lies – not in strategic bubble rap delivery.
The J is ideal for working a hub and spoke operation in concert with a strategic AT ac like the C-17. However, one stumbling block to harmonising the way we operate might prove to be an ill-informed t****r from one type slagging off an ac he's never even operated.
I do mean that in a constructive way of course.
However, the J has emerged as a very capable ac and despite what the rumour mill pushes out the tactical trials are going well. The boys involved are really excited about the capabilities that the ac is going to give us. You are correct in one area though the flight deck is not fully NVG compatible – but very few microwaves are these days.
The packet said tactical airlift ac – which is what we got. In some circumstances a Mk 3 could carry more than a J, its MTOW being 5 tonnes higher (albeit with the same wing box and fatigue life as a Mk 1). However, at the high weights were talking about that advantage would most likely be negated by the mass of the fuel required with its older engines. The J’s airframe is not wildly different from a K but the engines are; consequently anywhere hot, high, short or contaminated (or even and if you like) is not an issue for the J and this is where it’s real value lies – not in strategic bubble rap delivery.
The J is ideal for working a hub and spoke operation in concert with a strategic AT ac like the C-17. However, one stumbling block to harmonising the way we operate might prove to be an ill-informed t****r from one type slagging off an ac he's never even operated.
I do mean that in a constructive way of course.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 105
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well should I – probably yes.
However, sadly the throwaway line in your initial post reflects many peoples' views on the J. I therefore make no apology for throwing rocks at people who criticise it, when they speak from a position of little or no knowledge.
I really enjoy inviting people to the flight deck to show them my end of the ac and discuss its capabilities and shortfalls, and I’m the first to admit it has some. What’s really good, is that even the most vociferous J detractors seem to come away with their opinions changed or at least moderated. All I asking is for people to keep an open mind.
Unfortunately if people insist on keeping a closed mind then it seems unlikely that we will ever be able to utilise the potential of what is a very good tactical airlifter. Very soon the ac will be able to offer us capabilities like blind drop and internal aids letdowns – I only hope that RAF at large remains receptive to new ideas and has the imagination and flair to utilise the ac’s capabilities.
Your J quip added little to the meaning of your post but does help to perpetuate the sort of destructive attitude that has hamstrung the J project from day 1.
Selecting master lighting to thunderstorm – light enough?
However, sadly the throwaway line in your initial post reflects many peoples' views on the J. I therefore make no apology for throwing rocks at people who criticise it, when they speak from a position of little or no knowledge.
I really enjoy inviting people to the flight deck to show them my end of the ac and discuss its capabilities and shortfalls, and I’m the first to admit it has some. What’s really good, is that even the most vociferous J detractors seem to come away with their opinions changed or at least moderated. All I asking is for people to keep an open mind.
Unfortunately if people insist on keeping a closed mind then it seems unlikely that we will ever be able to utilise the potential of what is a very good tactical airlifter. Very soon the ac will be able to offer us capabilities like blind drop and internal aids letdowns – I only hope that RAF at large remains receptive to new ideas and has the imagination and flair to utilise the ac’s capabilities.
Your J quip added little to the meaning of your post but does help to perpetuate the sort of destructive attitude that has hamstrung the J project from day 1.
Selecting master lighting to thunderstorm – light enough?
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Detached (again!)
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I just flew back from Oman 'down the back' in a C-17 and have a few points to make:
1. It's faster than a C-130.
2. It's warmer as well.
3. There is a galley where you can make yourself coffee and tea.
4. It gets you home from the desert in one jump rather than two.
5. We had hot meals as well, but that may have been down to the fact that there were only 8 pax plus freight.
6. It has a real toilet, not a dodgy urinal on the loading ramp.
So it can carry a lot of stuff, go a long way quickly, and also has the odd comfort for us blokes down the back....too good to be true, really!
1. It's faster than a C-130.
2. It's warmer as well.
3. There is a galley where you can make yourself coffee and tea.
4. It gets you home from the desert in one jump rather than two.
5. We had hot meals as well, but that may have been down to the fact that there were only 8 pax plus freight.
6. It has a real toilet, not a dodgy urinal on the loading ramp.
So it can carry a lot of stuff, go a long way quickly, and also has the odd comfort for us blokes down the back....too good to be true, really!
The C-17 is proving to be an excellent and reliable airlifter performing equally well in both inter-theatre and intra-theatre applications. But we are not using it in the tactical role.
The C130K is a trusty workhorse for intra-theatre use with a proven tactical pedigree; the C130J has been beset with reliability and other problems, is far more complicated than it needed to be and has yet to be used in much more than straightforward non-tactical roles. But either model of C130 is totally unsuitable for moving passengers - indeed passengers are not allowed to be moved by C130 unless there is no feasible option. However, this is frequently ignored by the bean counters at 2Gp and/or DTMA who constantly break this regulation.
Then there might be the A400M. But the Italians have now pulled out, the next contract stage has been delayed yet again.... It is supposed (eventually) to fit between the C-17 and C130, but it'll probably be too late and too expensive, so we'll (hopefully) $hitcan any further direct C130 replacements (especially when the pongos wise up to the fact that mass parachute jumps are a thing of the past!) and increase the numbers and roles of the far superior C-17!
[ 21 November 2001: Message edited by: BEagle ]
The C130K is a trusty workhorse for intra-theatre use with a proven tactical pedigree; the C130J has been beset with reliability and other problems, is far more complicated than it needed to be and has yet to be used in much more than straightforward non-tactical roles. But either model of C130 is totally unsuitable for moving passengers - indeed passengers are not allowed to be moved by C130 unless there is no feasible option. However, this is frequently ignored by the bean counters at 2Gp and/or DTMA who constantly break this regulation.
Then there might be the A400M. But the Italians have now pulled out, the next contract stage has been delayed yet again.... It is supposed (eventually) to fit between the C-17 and C130, but it'll probably be too late and too expensive, so we'll (hopefully) $hitcan any further direct C130 replacements (especially when the pongos wise up to the fact that mass parachute jumps are a thing of the past!) and increase the numbers and roles of the far superior C-17!
[ 21 November 2001: Message edited by: BEagle ]
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: New Jersey, USA
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a C-141 jock, we've had similar debates as the C-17 entered USAF service, here's one that still has me laughing:
The new nickname for the C-17 is
BUDDAH
because its short, fat, sits around all day doing nothing, and EVERYBODY worships it!!
A JOKE, not intended to offend Buddists
Seriously good luck with it in the RAF. It seems to be earning its keep in Afghanistan.
The new nickname for the C-17 is
BUDDAH
because its short, fat, sits around all day doing nothing, and EVERYBODY worships it!!
A JOKE, not intended to offend Buddists
Seriously good luck with it in the RAF. It seems to be earning its keep in Afghanistan.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Right here (right now)
Posts: 235
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fine Pitch -
Before you go slogging on the creature comforts of the C-17, please take a second to realize the reason these transport aircraft were built in the first place. Not to appease the aircrew but to get things moved from point A to point B as best as possible.
Having ridden in the back of many a fine aircraft (no, I am not lucky enough to be a pilot), I can tell you there is nothing wrong with faster, warmer, and more comfortable.
God bless the C-130, it has served well beyond its intended career and continues to do so. Herks have taken me to some interesting places and kindly brought me home again. But nothing lasts forever...
Cheers!
Before you go slogging on the creature comforts of the C-17, please take a second to realize the reason these transport aircraft were built in the first place. Not to appease the aircrew but to get things moved from point A to point B as best as possible.
Having ridden in the back of many a fine aircraft (no, I am not lucky enough to be a pilot), I can tell you there is nothing wrong with faster, warmer, and more comfortable.
God bless the C-130, it has served well beyond its intended career and continues to do so. Herks have taken me to some interesting places and kindly brought me home again. But nothing lasts forever...
Cheers!
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Right here (right now)
Posts: 235
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...by the way, I found some interesting reports from the General Account Office on the C-17:
http://www.fas.org/man/gao/gao9526.htm http://www.fas.org/man/gao/ns96126.htm http://www.fas.org/man/gao/ns97050.htm
But more are available at the bottom of this URL on the C-17 from the Federation of American Scientists:
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/c-17.htm
Cheers! M2
http://www.fas.org/man/gao/gao9526.htm http://www.fas.org/man/gao/ns96126.htm http://www.fas.org/man/gao/ns97050.htm
But more are available at the bottom of this URL on the C-17 from the Federation of American Scientists:
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/c-17.htm
Cheers! M2
lazy fairweather PPRuNer
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Forres,Scotland
Posts: 218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I heard a pretty alarming rumour (and I stress it was just a rumour)that every time they practise these mass jumps from the Hercs they EXPECT to lose at least one Para.
**** me, you'd think they'd learn and just take the bus.
**** me, you'd think they'd learn and just take the bus.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: South of the Fens again!
Posts: 286
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BEagle: I query your comment '...indeed passengers are not allowed to be moved by C130 unless there is no feasible option. However, this is frequently ignored by the bean counters at 2Gp and/or DTMA who constantly break this regulation.'
Where is this rule laid down and can you provide some examples of when it has been ignored? For if this indeed the case, it needs to be (can and will be) investigated.
By the way, from my knowledge of 2 Gp/DTMA, I can confidently state that the bean counters aren't involved in putting loads to aircraft.
Where is this rule laid down and can you provide some examples of when it has been ignored? For if this indeed the case, it needs to be (can and will be) investigated.
By the way, from my knowledge of 2 Gp/DTMA, I can confidently state that the bean counters aren't involved in putting loads to aircraft.