C-17 replace C-5???
02-15-2011, 12:02 PM
#41
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Position: 757/767 Capt
Posts: 649
Cargo Man,
You may be mixing up some history. Originally the Boeing YC-14 and the McDonnell Douglas YC-15 were intended to replace the C-130. They were built in the 1970's and were about the size of a C-130. The Military decided to keep building C-130's and the YC-14 and YC-15 were relegated to Davis Montham, I've seen them there. About 5 years later, in the early 1980's the Air Force started to look for a C-141 replacement, McDonnel Douglas dusted off the designs for the smaller YC-15 and upsized it to eventually become the C-17. So the roots of the C-17 were from the initial C-130 replacement program (YC-15), but the eventual aircraft is much larger and not intended to replace the C-130.
Hope this helps,
Vito C-17 driver
You may be mixing up some history. Originally the Boeing YC-14 and the McDonnell Douglas YC-15 were intended to replace the C-130. They were built in the 1970's and were about the size of a C-130. The Military decided to keep building C-130's and the YC-14 and YC-15 were relegated to Davis Montham, I've seen them there. About 5 years later, in the early 1980's the Air Force started to look for a C-141 replacement, McDonnel Douglas dusted off the designs for the smaller YC-15 and upsized it to eventually become the C-17. So the roots of the C-17 were from the initial C-130 replacement program (YC-15), but the eventual aircraft is much larger and not intended to replace the C-130.
Hope this helps,
Vito C-17 driver
02-15-2011, 01:52 PM
#43
Line Holder
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: C-17A
Posts: 56
Driver, where are you based out of? I was in CHS and am waiting on my status for the new Reserve unit at Altus. If that falls through, I may be looking up at Stewart since it is also near a Delta base. Do you have contact numbers up there? PM me if you do, thanks
02-15-2011, 04:44 PM
#44
Abused Spouse of PBS
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Posts: 439
check your PM
06-21-2011, 09:01 PM
#45
Line Holder
Joined APC: Aug 2008
Position: 737 F/O
Posts: 75
Well I am going to thread revive this baby again....not 2 years bu a few months anyway. Anyone know the status of the Stewart 17's? Any inside track on their hiring plans? Please p.m. me if you have any info. Thanks.
06-22-2011, 05:26 PM
#46
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2010
Position: Baja Vermont
Posts: 5,196
The title of this thread is "C-17 replace the C-5". That ain't gonna happen on the planet, maybe 2 C-17s will replace a C-5 is more like it.
CMS Charlie Anderson proved, using the -1 data, that carrying a C-17 load, the C-5 could everything a C-17 could do AND carry twice the load ove greater ranges when re-engined.
SWF is in conversion now.
GF
CMS Charlie Anderson proved, using the -1 data, that carrying a C-17 load, the C-5 could everything a C-17 could do AND carry twice the load ove greater ranges when re-engined.
SWF is in conversion now.
GF
06-23-2011, 05:03 AM
#47
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: May 2007
Posts: 129
The title of this thread is "C-17 replace the C-5". That ain't gonna happen on the planet, maybe 2 C-17s will replace a C-5 is more like it.
CMS Charlie Anderson proved, using the -1 data, that carrying a C-17 load, the C-5 could everything a C-17 could do AND carry twice the load ove greater ranges when re-engined.
SWF is in conversion now.
GF
CMS Charlie Anderson proved, using the -1 data, that carrying a C-17 load, the C-5 could everything a C-17 could do AND carry twice the load ove greater ranges when re-engined.
SWF is in conversion now.
GF
06-23-2011, 03:52 PM
#48
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2010
Position: Baja Vermont
Posts: 5,196
I wasn't allows asleep in the back row of the theater at AMC HQ.
A lot depends on assumptions like, MC rates, turn times, MOG at onload and offload, etc. But after 4000 hours in FRED, it has its problems but moving outsize cargo ain't one of them. Mark 5 boats, SSN 21 propulsion, destroyer gearboxes, HH-53s w/o disassembly, all good to go.
Despite its image, I've gotten off the crew bus with a C-17 crew twice at KDOV and beaten them into the air.
GF
A lot depends on assumptions like, MC rates, turn times, MOG at onload and offload, etc. But after 4000 hours in FRED, it has its problems but moving outsize cargo ain't one of them. Mark 5 boats, SSN 21 propulsion, destroyer gearboxes, HH-53s w/o disassembly, all good to go.
Despite its image, I've gotten off the crew bus with a C-17 crew twice at KDOV and beaten them into the air.
GF
06-24-2011, 10:20 AM
#50
Moderator
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Posts: 5,807
I wasn't allows asleep in the back row of the theater at AMC HQ.
A lot depends on assumptions like, MC rates, turn times, MOG at onload and offload, etc. But after 4000 hours in FRED, it has its problems but moving outsize cargo ain't one of them. Mark 5 boats, SSN 21 propulsion, destroyer gearboxes, HH-53s w/o disassembly, all good to go.
Despite its image, I've gotten off the crew bus with a C-17 crew twice at KDOV and beaten them into the air.
GF
A lot depends on assumptions like, MC rates, turn times, MOG at onload and offload, etc. But after 4000 hours in FRED, it has its problems but moving outsize cargo ain't one of them. Mark 5 boats, SSN 21 propulsion, destroyer gearboxes, HH-53s w/o disassembly, all good to go.
Despite its image, I've gotten off the crew bus with a C-17 crew twice at KDOV and beaten them into the air.
GF
