| Author | Message | ||
     Danger_dave |
I was on a gig today and this unit flew overhead. Pretty big thing. What 'tis?  | ||
| Darth_villar |
Looks like a C-17 | ||
| Danger_dave |
It does indeed: http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/australia-to-s pend-up-to-15-bn-on-4-c17s-updated-01971/ | ||
| Reepicheep |
I see them flying around Dayton Ohio as well. Amazing thing to see flying low and slow... | ||
| Hughlysses |
We have a lot of them based here in Charleston, SC. I probably don't go a day without seeing at least one. | ||
| Boogiman1981 |
Globemaster III An amazing heavy lift aircraft. Low and slow but also when needed can get moving pretty well. | ||
| Natexlh1000 |
It looks like it ATE another plane  | ||
| Cityxslicker |
Planes, the only place where the World is bigger than the Galaxy. | ||
| F22raptor |
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hz4AlkSjLd0 | ||
| Spikey |
H.A.A.R.P. ?? maybe? | ||
| Mtjm2 |
Dave , If you lived here you would say WHAT HAPPENED TO THE PANES . G8 summit up the pike . Not even the commuters coming over . Miss the A-10s flying around at low level. | ||
| Slaughter |
HAARP as in the Gerald Bull cannon? | ||
| Slaughter |
One too many "A" - HARP was what I was thinking... | ||
| Ghettobirdpirate |
Definitely a Boeing C-17 Globemaster III. They build them at the airport I am based out of, KLGB (Long Beach, CA). They are most impressive. Surprisingly short take-offs and landings for their size. There is a ladder inside to get up to the 2nd story cockpit. They have been bought by several countries all over the world, Canada, Australia, India, UK to name a few. I have also personally seen them with "United Arab Emirates Air Force" painted on them at the C-17 plant.  They have a quite spacious interior. It has been said this is what the inside of a can of Whoop-ass looks like.  | ||
| Boogiman1981 |
Seeing them flown in combat is truly impressive. | ||
| Teeps |
Ghettobirdpirate Posted on Friday, May 18, 2012 - They have a quite spacious interior. It has been said this is what the inside of a can of Whoop-ass looks like. Agreed. There are different flavored cans too. | ||
| Spikey |
This http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xo-T_KvLNdQ&feature =related is what I was thinking the noise was. | ||
| Geedee |
Was shown over a C-124 Globemaster when I was a kid. Piston engines. It was the hugest plane I'd ever seen. | ||
| Danger_dave |
What torture. Imagine having to sit in a plane without an iPad. | ||
| Spikey |
Yea but just look at the legroom! | ||
| Cityxslicker |
that is luxury compared to the C-130. | ||
| Xdigitalx |
Isn't the C5 Galaxy a tad bigger? | ||
| Cityxslicker |
yep, but the advantage to the globemaster is its takeoff and runway requirements - much easier to get that thing in and out of more locations - the new choice, even above the old work horse 141. | ||
| Moxnix |
High and fast, low and slow. Always have the right tool for the job. | ||
| Ferris_von_bueller |
Coincidentally, I saw one landing at BWI this morning. | ||
| Aesquire |
The C-17 has an interesting history. ( most late 20th century US military airplane contracts have bizarre aspects ) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_YC- 15 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_YC-14 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_C-17_Globemast er_III 2 planes, the C-15 and C-14 were in competition for the contract. After much folderol, the USAF decided to award the contract to Mc-Doug, and then changed all the specs, size, etc. Ironic that with McD purchased by Boeing, they ended up making the plane anyway. A somewhat similar thing happened with the F/A-18. The USAF wanted a lightweight fighter to supplement the new F-15 Eagle. A 2 engined superjet, it was darned expensive. The logic was that we could buy lots of smaller planes and save money with a mix of super and simple fighters. ( didn't work ) The competition for that got down to the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F16_Fighting_Falcon and the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_YF-17 The Yf-17's engines were not ready for prime time and the F-16's were mostly compatible with the F-15's ( after a lot of changes ) so the USAF went for the F-16. Then spent so much money making it useful that buying F-15's would have been cheaper. Not saying it's a bad plane, despite it's Lawn Dart era, ( due to a lack of industrial understanding of the flow characteristics of teflon wire insulation..... but I digress ) but it's not an Eagle. Remember the legacy of the McNamara era, where having all the services use the same stuff made sense to a bean counter. In Motorcycle terms, it makes more sense to make Gold Wings and nothing else, right? Except for the expense..... So the alternative is a Honda Ruckus. They tried to sell a "navalized" F-16 to the Navy, but it is a bit fragile for deck landings. Northrup ( genius airframe/aerodynamic guys ) and McDonnell-Douglas ( genius carrier plane and production guys ) got together and turned the tiny YF-17 into the F-18. They were going to build attack and fighter versions, decided not to, renamed it the F/A-18, and so forth. The pity is, nice as the F/A-18 is, it ended up being more expensive than the F-14, with less range than the F-14, with bombs, or the A-6, and A-7 which the F/A-18 replaced. Ultimate pity is the Super Tomcat F-14 was so good that it ended up being suppressed to make room for the F/A-18. ( Checking which Congressman is from where teaches a lot about this kind of thing. ) With new engines and avionics, the Super Tomcat could carry more bombs, farther, faster, with equal accuracy, and still be the only plane to use the Phoenix missile, capable of shooting down not just planes at over a hundred miles but also supersonic cruise missiles. Of course.... after some years.... to get the capability back that the Navy lost when going to the F/A-18, they redesigned the darn thing, again, and came out with the Super Hornet "E/F" model, for mucho bucks more. ( actually a completely new plane, but the military works that way... see the B-29/B-50 dealeo where an upgraded Superfortress was renumbered to seem a whole new plane to Congress. The Super Hornet is even less like the Hornet than the B-29/50 was, but has the same number designation ) We are going through the same thing today with the F-35. In an attempt to make a cheaper plane than the absurdly expensive ( and unsurpassed ) F-22, Congress is again trying to screw up as bad as the F-111b http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-111B The Brits had some luck in the 1930's and 40's using Spitfires and Hurricanes on Aircraft Carriers.... but they had no choice, not having a modern naval fighter. They ended up using our Wildcats ( Martlet ) and Corsairs. Air Force planes and Navy planes just have different needs. You can easily adapt a Navy plane for the Air Force. The other way is not so easy. Kelly Johnson of Lockheed once said ( and I'm paraphrasing ) Someday the Air Force will get a plane that does everything they want. They'll only be able to afford one, and they'll keep it in a vault so it can't get hurt. | ||
| Boogiman1981 |
Kelly had a 15th unwritten rule as well basically don't do business with the navy. | ||
| Kenm123t |
The Sea Shadow is up for sale to Salvors The Navy stealth program that the navy killed. Read up on why it had a paint locker! | ||
| Hootowl |
The F/A 18 E/F was to replace the F-14A+/B/D, not the F/A-18 C/D as an interim CAP aircraft. It will be replaced by the Naval variant of the F35. There were significant savings in scaling up the 18 vs. designing a completely new aircraft. The only real issue they had with hitting the zoom button were some turbulence issues near the front of the wings. | ||
| Hootowl |
The F-14 is a dinosaur. Even the D with the glass cockpit and all new avionics package was hampered by a high maintenance airframe. The F/A-18 ABCDEF all require much fewer maintenance hours per flight hour than the 14s. The 18s were designed to be serviced. It was the first plane built with the poor schmuck who had to work on it in mind. Sure was fun watching a 14 on AB take off. At least until they replaced all the engines with more powerful ones. Then they couldn't use AB or they'd break the cat. Fun to watch, lousy to work on. More capable than the 18 E/F? Maybe. But I'll take an FMC 18 over a broken 14 any day. |
