Jump to content

Random Pictures. (Just add one photograph that you personally have taken).


john luke

Recommended Posts

41 minutes ago, Horizondave said:

Think you will find it is a C17 not a Galaxy. The engines are a giveaway.

Picture of Boeing C17 from underneath..

C17.jpg

Ah yes, I see the little sticky out extra bits on the engines.

Also looks identical with the landing gear down too!

The one that flew over me had recently taken off so was still fairly low.

  • Thumbs Up 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, lazarus said:

good call...recent article:

RAF receives £400m to upgrade C-17 Globemaster and Chinook fleets

https://www.airforce-technology.com/news/raf-upgrade-c-17-globemaster-chinook-fleets/

 

RAF-13thSept.jpg

I used to deliver to RAF Odiham when I was working.  It is the home of the Chinook Squadrons, they have an unused one placed right at the gate. Always interesting when I was at the location.

  • Like 1
  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, lazarus said:

C17 specs & a comparison with a C5

 

C-17_graphic-1024x696.png

d9yrqso-e14cd41c-20ed-406e-8cc2-4406723093bd.jpg

Nice comparison, as well as the sticky out bits on the engines, mine also had sticky up bits on the ends of the wings. LOL

I wonder if they are cosmetics or improvements to flight. I guess the latter given the probable extra cost involved.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, boydeste said:

Nice comparison, as well as the sticky out bits on the engines, mine also had sticky up bits on the ends of the wings. LOL

I wonder if they are cosmetics or improvements to flight. I guess the latter given the probable extra cost involved.

Winglets can reduce drag by reducing wing tip vortices making the air flow across the wing more efficient,  may enhance safety for following aircraft and increase lift without increasing wingspan, useful when designing airport gates. 

Oh, and they look pretty.   :default_biggrin:

  • Thanks 1
  • Great Info 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, maipenrai said:

Thanks to lazarus for posting this - I always wondered how the two planes differed; I've seen C-17's on several occasions but have never seen a C-5 before...

I wasn't familiar with the C-17 so I learned something too.

Here's the only C-5 I've personally photographed...in Hawaii back in 2010.

5164397944_6d0806f9db_b.jpg

Edited by lazarus
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, coxyhog said:

Now that is so much a better picture than aeroplanes.....

20210615-IMG_0928.jpg.7734cb22b88d880bc15cae6716de8fc3.jpeg

Sorry about that, I didn't expect my chance pic of a plane to generate so much discussion. LOL

But that is what I love about the members here, so much knowledge on so many things.

Every day is a school day.

BTW that is one hell of a set of earings.

 

Edited by boydeste
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, boydeste said:

Sorry about that, I didn't expect my chance pic of a plane to generate so much discussion. LOL

But that is what I love about the members here, so much knowledge on so many things.

Every day is a school day.

BTW that is one hell of a set of earings.

 

Doubt I'm not the only one who hadn't noticed the earrings until you mentioned them.

  • Like 2
  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, forqalso said:

The first one had an escape chute from the flight deck out of the bottom of the plane.

The first F-104 Starfighters had a downward firing ejection seat.Not a great idea as a lot of emergencies requiring ejection are on take off & landing.Eventually they saw the light & fitted conventional seats.

With the C-17 I think it was more to do with facilitating the egress through the roof of the flight deck rather than the T tail.Lots of instruments etc in the flight deck roof and it would require a major modification to install any type of escape hatch.Ejection seats these days are rocket initiated & go up at one hell of a rate & I doubt the tail would be a problem.

Edited by coxyhog
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, coxyhog said:

The first F-104 Starfighters had a downward firing ejection seat.Not a great idea as a lot of emergencies requiring ejection are on take off & landing.Eventually they saw the light & fitted conventional seats.

With the C-17 I think it was more to do with facilitating the egress through the roof of the flight deck rather than the T tail.Lots of instruments etc in the flight deck roof and it would require a major modification to install any type of escape hatch.Ejection seats these days are rocket initiated & go up at one hell of a rate & I doubt the tail would be a problem.

I guess the engineer that explained the design was wrong. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, forqalso said:

I guess the engineer that explained the design was wrong. 

This is a Handley Page Victor which did have upward firing ejection seats,which didn't hit the tail,I met a guy years ago who banged out of one....& that was in the days before rocket assisted seats.

Handley_Page_HP-80_Victor_K2,_UK_-_Air_Force_AN1926561.jpeg

Edited by coxyhog
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, coxyhog said:

I don't know but to eject a pilot through this roof would entail a major modification....

C173-e1490888993216.jpeg

Like I said, “I guess the engineer that explained the design was wrong.” Or was he lying? Maybe he meant the flight deck modifications were never considered because the ejecting pilots would have been killed by the vertical or horizontal stabilizer. And before you bring up “ejection seat these days” again, realize we aren’t talking about these days, but a forty year old design.

AE093A02-6C32-4FDC-943E-52F8A613141C.png

That was a very favorable camera angle you chose. I wonder why you didn’t pick this one?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, forqalso said:

Like I said, “I guess the engineer that explained the design was wrong.” Or was he lying? Maybe he meant the flight deck modifications were never considered because the ejecting pilots would have been killed by the vertical or horizontal stabilizer. And before you bring up “ejection seat these days” again, realize we aren’t talking about these days, but a forty year old design.

AE093A02-6C32-4FDC-943E-52F8A613141C.png

That was a very favorable camera angle you chose. I wonder why you didn’t pick this one?

Yep that's a different angle,probably only take off their shoulders on egress.

By ejection seats I meant that by the time of the C-17 ejections seats were much advanced from the Victor so that if they could clear the T tail of forty years ago then they would have absolutely no trouble in doing so on the C-17.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...