C-17 Globemaster Pregame Flyover

#51
#51
Dunno, but I would wager it burns more to taxi out to the runway than you or I put into our vehicles in a year.

A 747 uses basically a gallon a second-at altitude
I once owned a '71 Ford LTD with a 429 4-barrel engine with police interceptors. Running flat out I'd say the C-17 gets better mileage - but man, that old lead sled could get up and go!
 
Last edited:
#52
#52
Sure....I guess you could say the over 2500 hours that I logged throughout a 20 year career in military aviation (yes, sometimes even doing flyover's at games) didn't really count because it disagrees with the absolutely ridiculous take you have on this subject. It is quite possible that my previous experience as a NRCM Flight Instructor and ALSE tech means I'm not qualified to understand how all of the training hours I had to coordinate and then execute worked. We should've just given the funding back and refused to do anything even remotely close to something the public could possibly get enjoyment from. I mean, why would we possibly do that? Static Displays and Flyover's.....NOT ON MY WATCH!!!!! It's not like the tax money that came out of their pocket paid my salary, right? Or maybe it was the multiple Air Medals and Sikorski Rescue awards for MEDEVAC hoist rescues in places like Afghanistan that disqualifies me from knowing and fully comprehending how the military setup their training programs. No wait, I've got it, it was the multiple public service missions like going to Louisiana during Hurricane Katrina that has me absolutely blinded as to how the process really played out. Yeah, you're probably right. All of those mundane and basic tasks that we had to constantly perform until it was second nature were a complete waste of time and resources.

You have absolutely bested me, sir. My DD-214 and DA form 759 are 100% lies. It is obvious that I have no clue what I'm talking about......
And I got 22 years of maintenance on fighters...I know how you ops guys work.
 
#53
#53
It IS classified as a heavy lift aircraft. In a pinch it can can haul an M-1 main battle tank. It is designed to operate from remote landing strips (but usually doesn't) and its thrust reversers can actually move it backwards!

The C-17 came about because the Air Force wanted an a heavy lifter to supplement the C-5 without re-opening the C-5 production line. The C-5 is a 1960s design and the newest one is over 30 years old. It has been upgraded to the C-5M standard but is still an old design.

The USAF has approximately three times as many C-17s as C-5s.

The -17 we saw Saturday came by at pretty much the same speed it would use when dropping paratroopers (one of its missions).

It cruises at 520 knots which puts it up there with most commercial airliners.
They retired all the C-141s, and I'm not entirely sure why they had a short life compared to some things. I heard a guy saying they just wore the airframes out getting to the middle east and back during Kuwait/Iraq. Evidently that's right. Wikipedia says the AF looked at a life extension program which I assume is you have to look at a lot of pieces parts for fatigue issues. So somehow they decided they didn't care enough with the C-17 ready for production about that same time and the C-130's basically available forever on the small end.
 

VN Store



Back
Top