C-5 vs. C-17
#21
No no no ... please, don't use tankers for AMC missions. We need tankers for the combat air forces. If it has to get there that fast, FedEx it.
I always heard the C-5 guys complaining about crews. In the -10 world, similar to what another mentioned, we ended up with big crews when it came to DV support.
1 Mission Commander (sometimes 1 of the 4 pilots)
4 Pilots
2 Engineers
3 Booms
1 Purser
2 or 3 Aircraft Mechanics
2 Comm Personnel
1 Comm Mechanic
6 Ravens
3 Flight Attendants
And of course, there would almost always be a boom evaluator on board.
Guessing, the C-17 guys. In the KC-10, I flew to more than double the number of airports what my best friend flew in the C-5. And he'd been flying the C-5 longer than I had been in the KC-10.
1 Mission Commander (sometimes 1 of the 4 pilots)
4 Pilots
2 Engineers
3 Booms
1 Purser
2 or 3 Aircraft Mechanics
2 Comm Personnel
1 Comm Mechanic
6 Ravens
3 Flight Attendants
And of course, there would almost always be a boom evaluator on board.
Guessing, the C-17 guys. In the KC-10, I flew to more than double the number of airports what my best friend flew in the C-5. And he'd been flying the C-5 longer than I had been in the KC-10.
#22
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: 744 CA
Posts: 4,772
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."
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."
#25
Every single OEF and OIF mission required at least one and usually two operational AR for the first few months. I got my requal AR check after returning to the plane from an exchange tour on an operational combat sortie...
And we need them in SOF!
Originally Posted by KC10 FATBoy
No no no ... please, don't use tankers for AMC missions. We need tankers for the combat air forces. If it has to get there that fast, FedEx it.
#26
I'm also a C-5M guy and we are very capable....the M model brings basically a new side to heavy airlift.
Each airplane has its role. We can carry a lot of cargo a long way, and the C-17 can carry a little cargo a long way (with an A/R). C-17s go to dirt strips and more austere airfields than us.
But so far we continue to put the gear down and land at the right airports
Each airplane has its role. We can carry a lot of cargo a long way, and the C-17 can carry a little cargo a long way (with an A/R). C-17s go to dirt strips and more austere airfields than us.
But so far we continue to put the gear down and land at the right airports
Can we start a petition to bring back the C-141 Starlifter please...
#28
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?
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?
#29
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: 744 CA
Posts: 4,772
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.....
#30
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2009
Position: Airplane
Posts: 2,385