C-5 vs. C-17
01-05-2013, 07:14 PM
#32
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Position: Left Seat, Toyota Tacoma
Posts: 593
Originally Posted by HercDriver130
Originally Posted by LowSlowT2
As with the C141, the C5 and C17 crews will be flown home from the boneyard by a Herk! 
When the C-17 production line is closed... and the mods to the C-5M are done.... Lockheed will still be producing the Mighty Hercules...
... Nearing SIXTY years and counting.....
01-06-2013, 02:16 AM
#34
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2011
Posts: 484
Originally Posted by Hrkdrivr
No it's NOT.
Only because we didn't get them until I'd moved out of the Herk world. Damn I wish I'd gotten a chance to fly that beast!
Only because we didn't get them until I'd moved out of the Herk world. Damn I wish I'd gotten a chance to fly that beast!
That said, they're still working the kinks out in the tactical arena. I'll be curious to see how AFSOC fares once they actually start modifying the MC-J for their missions...but they're adding the Nav (nee CSO) back in!
01-06-2013, 05:52 AM
#35
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2009
Position: Airplane
Posts: 2,385
Originally Posted by Hrkdrivr
No it's NOT.
Only because we didn't get them until I'd moved out of the Herk world. Damn I wish I'd gotten a chance to fly that beast!
Only because we didn't get them until I'd moved out of the Herk world. Damn I wish I'd gotten a chance to fly that beast!
The one thing the legacy has that I wish the J had (apparently the C-27J has a software version) is NTS. No two-step assault landings in the J and those arrivals into Bagram when ATC keeps you up high can be quite tricky.
01-06-2013, 08:02 AM
#36
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2011
Posts: 484
Originally Posted by Lobaeux
I fly the stretch model, so it carries much more than the legacy as well.
Originally Posted by Lobaeux
The one thing the legacy has that I wish the J had (apparently the C-27J has a software version) is NTS. No two-step assault landings in the J and those arrivals into Bagram when ATC keeps you up high can be quite tricky.
01-06-2013, 11:49 AM
#37
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2009
Position: Airplane
Posts: 2,385
Originally Posted by LowSlowT2
What's max gross weight? I know the RAF had an increase for their Mk3 (stretch), but the civilian company I fly for is still limited to 155K despite being stretchs.
And why do you wish you had NTS?
And why do you wish you had NTS?
NTS, while the FE was always complaining about it, allowed for increased descent rates without the increase in speed that we have in the J. The J is actually quite tough to slow down in, even worse when your using the autothrottles. Autothrottles. I can't believe I said that in a Tac Airlifter.
01-06-2013, 12:30 PM
#38
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: 744 CA
Posts: 4,772
jeesh......we still had "coffee grinder" ADFs and Omega's in the "E" when I started flying her in 1987...... autothrottles?......argh.
LOVED being right at the sweet spot with the NTS pulsing when trying to make a very rapid descent.
LOVED being right at the sweet spot with the NTS pulsing when trying to make a very rapid descent.
01-06-2013, 08:04 PM
#39
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2011
Posts: 484
Originally Posted by Lobaeux
Max takeoff and land weight is 175,000, though there are slight stipulations with this based on FMC version, assault landing, fuel loads and obviously TOLD restrictions. Still, it's quite a bit of stuff for a tactical airlifter.
Originally Posted by Lobaeux
NTS, while the FE was always complaining about it, allowed for increased descent rates without the increase in speed that we have in the J. The J is actually quite tough to slow down in, even worse when your using the autothrottles. Autothrottles. I can't believe I said that in a Tac Airlifter.
Slip it instead.
01-07-2013, 06:32 PM
#40
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2007
Position: Fairly local
Posts: 1,458
Originally Posted by HercDriver130
What...that Euro trash......better than that have tried....and failed.
