Can't argue against that!

Both airframes are vital to the TPFDD and both complement each other's strengths and weaknesses. Let us sing kumbaya.

Personally, I favor the small crew. I'd go nuts dealing with 20 different aircrew on a 10 day trip!

C17D

 

Uh, we all know that tac is where its at in the C-130.

 

I live for the days of a small crew of 10-12....crazy that is a small crew....when we first started getting the airplane crews were 18-20 and that was a nightmare.

 

I can count on 1 hand the times I've had to operationally A/R

 

Let's drop the screw ups and just focus on the assumption you have a solid crew force. If you'd like a hedge, check sortie rates/hours/mishaps- you have to be in the game to get injured in the game.

C-5- if it's up flying, it's a crew-comfort Winnebago. It had better be, you all pounded the ramp for time equal to a C-17 average mission before getting airborne. Hope the F/E didn't break a good plane or push to fly a bad one. They finally put some 1980s engines into a 1960s aircraft and pretend they created a masterpiece. Well, welcome to the 1980s, which is about usually where the C-17 shortcomings arose.

C-130- Workhorse- always, always will be. The C-47/DC-3 follow on. If we get to fly back from the boneyard when our last planes' park, it'd be on a C-130. Hopefully the air conditioning works, if installed at all.

Tanker- well, it's a tanker. Sometimes you, the man, or your customer/s do not want you to stop along the way. It's just a tool in the bag. Have fun with it. I thought the new C-5 could go East Coast to Iraq w/ a good payload and not hit a tanker? Not great for crew rest plans, but impressive and no tanker req'd.

C-17- a hoot. Just not for hobbyists. I've had 19 on a "crew" or flight authorization or set of 781s, but that was to drag a CJCS around. It was a lot of work, but a lot of fun- so I'd do it again. SECDEF support was lighter travel, and it wasn't a nice crew rest every other stop like the CJCS. Burns a lot of gas per mile, flexibility isn't free, and it's over-built compared to a civilian cargo airframe. You can land at max takeoff weight. You can carry a tank on 170' wingspan. Not a lot of room when she's full, a little courtesy goes a long way. Could sum it up simply in "scoreboard".

C-17 Driver- Don't you need to update your avatar message?

 

Moose, I think you summed it up nicely. I've got a bud that flew the 17 and is flying the C-130J. Of course I had to ask which he prefers and to no surprise, the 17. Then again there might be some bias as that's where he grew up. BTW, he's trying to go back the the 17.

 

Reminds me of a time riding up front on a UAL flight with a captain who flew 130s in the 80s and a F/O who flew them in the 90s.

After sharing a few stories about the glory days the captain looks back and says "All you young guys grew up starry eyed after watching Top Gun as little kids. You know where the real fun is flying airplanes? Tactical Airlift."

 

Ha.. Thanks! I just updated part of it. Are you asking about the "evaluating my options" message? If so, I'll leave that one there. The passing of the UAL contract and eventual recalls could make this an interesting year!

Tired of the ART gig yet?

 

You Betcha'. Had to work 2x as much to hit my other job's 2nd year pay.

The grind was worse than airdrop currency back in the day.

I dig the teaching, owning the jets and hacking the mish w/ newbs, can't wait til it's easy for everyone, relatively.

Somebody need a slightly used RODEO clown?

 

who gets more flying hours ? C-17 guy or C-5 guy

also, relatively speaking, who gets the better TDY locations on the road ?