C-5 vs. C-17

Reply Subscribe

Page 4 of 9

Last »

Thread Tools

Search this Thread

01-05-2013 | 06:51 PM

#31

Hrkdrivr

Line Holder

Joined: Oct 2007

Posts: 1,503

Likes: 2

From: Fairly local

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lobaeux

Agreed!

It's okay to be Jay.

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!

01-05-2013 | 07:14 PM

#32

Riddler

Gets Weekends Off

Joined: Jul 2006

Posts: 593

Likes: 0

From: Left Seat, Toyota Tacoma

Quote:

Originally Posted by HercDriver130

Quote:

Originally Posted by LowSlowT2

As with the C141, the C5 and C17 crews will be flown home from the boneyard by a Herk!

+1.........

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.....

Just wait until the A400M comes out and puts the Herk to shame... In another 30 years.

01-05-2013 | 08:28 PM

#33

HercDriver130

Gets Weekends Off

Joined: Jul 2007

Posts: 4,772

Likes: 1

From: 744 CA

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riddler

Just wait until the A400M comes out and puts the Herk to shame... In another 30 years.

What...that Euro trash......better than that have tried....and failed.

01-06-2013 | 02:16 AM

#34

LowSlowT2

Gets Weekends Off

Joined: Aug 2011

Posts: 484

Likes: 0

Quote:

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!

I got to take one for a spin around the pattern a couple of times. Performance is incredible. They can now take off from places they can't land in, unlike the classic which is the other way around.

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

Lobaeux

Gets Weekends Off

Joined: Dec 2009

Posts: 2,385

Likes: 0

From: Airplane

Quote:

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!

It really is an absolute joy to fly. The situational awareness you have in the plane is incredible, the airdrop accuracy is ridiculous and power puts the legacy to shame. I fly the stretch model, so it carries much more than the legacy as well.
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

LowSlowT2

Gets Weekends Off

Joined: Aug 2011

Posts: 484

Likes: 0

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lobaeux

I fly the stretch model, so it carries much more than the legacy as well.

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.

Quote:

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.

And why do you wish you had NTS?

01-06-2013 | 11:49 AM

#37

Lobaeux

Gets Weekends Off

Joined: Dec 2009

Posts: 2,385

Likes: 0

From: Airplane

Quote:

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?

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.

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

HercDriver130

Gets Weekends Off

Joined: Jul 2007

Posts: 4,772

Likes: 1

From: 744 CA

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.

01-06-2013 | 08:04 PM

#39

LowSlowT2

Gets Weekends Off

Joined: Aug 2011

Posts: 484

Likes: 0

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lobaeux

175K is NORMAL or Emergency/Wartime? I think RAF Mk3 was 160 or 162K...can't remember.

Quote:

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.

NTS doesn't really help you slow down. And continual use in that manner is hard on the lord mounts and truss mounts. They CAN go to feather if they stick. I never had one, and after they replaced the plunger tips with teflon, it reduced it immensely, however, there were still one or two over the years that have stuck. That's why your FE was all over you about it.

Slip it instead.

01-07-2013 | 06:32 PM

#40

Hrkdrivr

Line Holder

Joined: Oct 2007

Posts: 1,503

Likes: 2

From: Fairly local

Quote:

Originally Posted by HercDriver130

What...that Euro trash......better than that have tried....and failed.

Hell, that airplane was on the boards when I was a young pup in the Herk in the early 90s. It may end up being a great airplane, but Mr Lockheed has already perfected that niche and EVERYONE flies the Herk, and will continue to do so.