Horizondave Posted November 25, 2021 Share Posted November 25, 2021 50 minutes ago, boydeste said: That's the one, thanks. Think you will find it is a C17 not a Galaxy. The engines are a giveaway. Picture of Boeing C17 from underneath.. 2 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boydeste Posted November 25, 2021 Share Posted November 25, 2021 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.. 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. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lazarus Posted November 25, 2021 Share Posted November 25, 2021 2 hours 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.. 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/ 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lazarus Posted November 25, 2021 Share Posted November 25, 2021 C17 specs & a comparison with a C5 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lazarus Posted November 25, 2021 Share Posted November 25, 2021 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horizondave Posted November 25, 2021 Share Posted November 25, 2021 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/ 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. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boydeste Posted November 25, 2021 Share Posted November 25, 2021 4 hours ago, lazarus said: C17 specs & a comparison with a C5 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. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bob lt Posted November 26, 2021 Share Posted November 26, 2021 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. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maipenrai Posted November 26, 2021 Share Posted November 26, 2021 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... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lazarus Posted November 26, 2021 Share Posted November 26, 2021 (edited) 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. Edited November 26, 2021 by lazarus 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bob lt Posted November 26, 2021 Share Posted November 26, 2021 There is a bunch of them just down the road. The C17 looks short and fat sturdy, a bit like me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post lazarus Posted November 26, 2021 Popular Post Share Posted November 26, 2021 walk in the park... 9 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coxyhog Posted November 26, 2021 Share Posted November 26, 2021 Now that is so much a better picture than aeroplanes..... 1 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boydeste Posted November 26, 2021 Share Posted November 26, 2021 (edited) 23 minutes ago, coxyhog said: Now that is so much a better picture than aeroplanes..... 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 November 26, 2021 by boydeste 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
forcebwithu Posted November 26, 2021 Share Posted November 26, 2021 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. 2 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boydeste Posted November 26, 2021 Share Posted November 26, 2021 1 minute ago, forcebwithu said: Doubt I'm not the only one who hadn't noticed the earrings until you mentioned them. They are close to the tits. 2 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post forqalso Posted November 27, 2021 Popular Post Share Posted November 27, 2021 My first real job after the Marines was installing flight controls on C-17s at the McDonnell Douglas plant in Long Beach, California. When I hired on, the first one was still being assembled and by the time I left maybe five had been delivered to the USAF and another four were in various stages of assembly. When the first flight was scheduled, I went on vacation to see my mother on what ended up being her last birthday. I was glued to Headline News to watch the take off and the newscaster said, “After the break, aviation tragedy in Long Beach.” I thought, “well, there goes my job.” It turned out, as the C-17 was prepped to take off, with thousands of employees lining the fence of the airport, a small private plane crashed on takeoff, killing the pilot and her daughter. The first flight was delayed by a day. The first one had an escape chute from the flight deck out of the bottom of the plane. Some of the test flights push the airframe to its limits and the high tail meant no ejection seats. It was basically a hydraulically deployed air dam that kept the crew from rolling along the bottom of the plane if they ever needed to leave the plane in flight. I really loved that job, it was really something special to work on something that had never flown, then see it taxi, take flight and disappear. 6 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coxyhog Posted November 27, 2021 Share Posted November 27, 2021 (edited) 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 November 27, 2021 by coxyhog 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
forqalso Posted November 27, 2021 Share Posted November 27, 2021 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 More sharing options...
coxyhog Posted November 27, 2021 Share Posted November 27, 2021 10 minutes ago, forqalso said: I guess the engineer that explained the design was wrong. I don't know but to eject a pilot through this roof would entail a major modification.... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coxyhog Posted November 27, 2021 Share Posted November 27, 2021 (edited) 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. Edited November 27, 2021 by coxyhog 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yessongs Posted November 27, 2021 Share Posted November 27, 2021 @coxyhog Just got to ask, does that small parachute at the back of that monster actually help slow down this beast? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coxyhog Posted November 27, 2021 Share Posted November 27, 2021 (edited) 26 minutes ago, Yessongs said: @coxyhog Just got to ask, does that small parachute at the back of that monster actually help slow down this beast? Yes,that's it's job,brake parachute. It's quite a big parachute though! Edited November 27, 2021 by coxyhog 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
forqalso Posted November 27, 2021 Share Posted November 27, 2021 1 hour ago, coxyhog said: I don't know but to eject a pilot through this roof would entail a major modification.... 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. 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 More sharing options...
coxyhog Posted November 27, 2021 Share Posted November 27, 2021 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. 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 More sharing options...
Recommended Posts