HercDriver130

And it cant stop in 3000 feet either......

You can AR a C-17 to its destination.... which doesnt have to be some pretty piece of concrete. that KC-10 isnt going places a c-17 could get into and out of.

All of these aircraft have their niche. I know alot of Herc guys who went to the C-17 and loved it. Col John Norton was an IP in my Herc squadron when I was a fresh faced right seater. John did some of the intial testing at edwards and had nothing but great things to say about that bird.

KC10 FATboy

Herc -- the point of my posting was to show that newer as well as older cargo designs strategically move cargo more efficient than a C-17 and that no civilian company in their right mind should buy it to fly cargo in this sense. As Moose said, it simply burns too much fuel because it was designed to do the short field landings / tactical stuff.

A majority of our cargo that is moved strategically is moved using the CRAF (747s MD11s). The fuel cost would be substantially less if we used the CRAF more than the C17s. Therefore, we wouldn't need the Northeast Tanker Task Force with KC-10s and KC-135s sitting Bravo 24/7/365 since Sept 11th just to get the C-17 across the pond. Of course, what would the reservists / guard do? They have to eat too.

We're all friends here right? Yes!

The major problem is, AMC never really learned how to use the KC-10 in the cargo sense -- it never will. We fly 90% of our missions empty -- which one could argue the KC-10 is the real gas hog. AFSO21 that! But our mobility system doesn't have that type of flexibility to move cargo destined for a T-tailer to a KC-10 (747 / MD11) readily. Only when our boomers start to go non-current does it seem that we get cargo runs. The "Tanker and Airlift Control Center" might as well have a 50 foot concrete wall between the tankers and airlifters -- the two entities don't talk unless an airlifter needs a tanker.

The KC-10 will always be the red-headed step child of the airlift / tanker world. These days, everybody needs a tanker and we are simply over tasked. KC-10s have more flying time than KC-135s! It will always be a slave to the fighter / bomber/ navy commander.

I resent the "Gucci" remark -- we deploy too!

-FATTY

HercDriver130

I understood you point......

but please....dont talk to an old Herc driver about being the "red headed step child".... Strat airlifters never really considered us part of MAC.... we just worked hard at doing our job...going places nobody else wanted to or dared to go, and doing the jobs nobody wanted.

Hell I cant tell you how many people thought that C-130s belonged to the Army....because we had props and were not pure jet/fan aircraft....

K4FE

Thanks for the clarification. The C-17 definitely is not.

In a nutshell, FAR 25 specifies certification standards for Transport Category airplanes. U.S. certificated Air Carriers cannot operate T-Cat airplanes that are not certified under FAR 25.

tomgoodman

Old Herc drivers told me they liked it better when they were not part of MAC. TAC pretty much let them do their own thing, which made everyone happy.

Tractor Bob

Just putting this out there:

Contrary to the doom and gloom AF guys testifying on capital hill to beg for more
C-17s, My unit has posted a better than 80% home station launch reliability for the past several month. The generals can't get any more C-17s if they tell anyone the some of the C-5As can and do make it off the ground that often.

If Fred could have made any money off the C-141/C-5/C-17 he would have had them years ago.

HercDriver130

Tom...thats a fact.. im old enough... in my 40's...... to have had Majors and LTC's in my squadron who flew in Vietnam and were part of TAC...... Those are the guys who taught me to fly the Herc.... and buddy they could fly.

Nitefrater

An 80% launch reliability rate may be a good thing in the AF, but it'd mean bankruptcy for FedEx. Maybe that's why we don't own any military lifters.

Trash Hauler 1

Been a while since I turned an AF wheel. Don't know if all the airlifters are using MELs now, but back in the day, if the AC (or eng if the AC was smart) said the jet isn't moving, it didn't move. Today using the MEL, I'd bet that the launch reliability rate is somewhat higher than back then. Add to that the fact that the AF typically underfunds spare parts in favor of curbs and the Club, and you have a formula for crappy reliability. Also, flying unique aircraft (C5 vs 747 with lots of tech support) hurts the numbers. Lockheed built some great planes, but their exclusivity makes the reliability worse. Just one old fart's perspective.

TH1

Tractor Bob

The AF has underfunded parts for the C-5 (and the C-141 before that) to buy C-17s. Then they cry about how bad the old planes are and no one ever calls them on it. However, nothing has change the mel in restricting the A/C or Eng from not going if safety is at stake.

Anyone but an AF would go broke flying C-5s/C-17s