Re: SICK: Military Assault Landing Videos
Quote:
Originally Posted by cancidas
Quote:
Originally Posted by USAF Pilot 07
The C-17 is one of, if not the only, aircraft that increases power in the flare...
i wonder if that isn't done more to have the engines spinning and ready to reverse than to make a nice soft touchdown. from what i've seen that airplane do the landings are all but soft...
Negative... The C-17 doesn't "flare" the way a traditional airplane does... Instead a power push is applied just prior to landing to reduce impact force... While the landings may look "hard", they really aren't that bad from inside the airplane when done correctly. On all the -17 flights I've been on, I didn't think the landings were much rougher from landings on other a/c, except for maybe some of the assault landings...
You would definitely be able to tell (at least from inside the aircraft) if the power push was not sufficient.
Re: SICK: Military Assault Landing Videos
Quote:
Originally Posted by GothamSpotter
Boeing oughta sell a C-17 VIP.
How come they don't sell it commercially? I'm going to guess because it goes by military spec that the C-17 is more performance oriented, i.e. "here to get the job done quickly" than it is miles per pound carried wise. Or is Boeing not allowed to sell civilian versions of military airplanes? I think the only civ version of a military carrier has been the Hercules and the B-747 when the C-5 was chosen over it.
Re: SICK: Military Assault Landing Videos
Quote:
Originally Posted by GothamSpotter
Boeing oughta sell a C-17 VIP.
How come they don't sell it commercially? I'm going to guess because it goes by military spec that the C-17 is more performance oriented, i.e. "here to get the job done quickly" than it is miles per pound carried wise. Or is Boeing not allowed to sell civilian versions of military airplanes? I think the only civ version of a military carrier has been the Hercules and the B-747 when the C-5 was chosen over it.
Re: SICK: Military Assault Landing Videos
Quote:
Originally Posted by Idlewild
How come they don't sell it commercially? I'm going to guess because it goes by military spec that the C-17 is more performance oriented, i.e. "here to get the job done quickly" than it is miles per pound carried wise. Or is Boeing not allowed to sell civilian versions of military airplanes? I think the only civ version of a military carrier has been the Hercules and the B-747 when the C-5 was chosen over it.
Lockheed considered a commercial variant (with the designation L-500) after the C-5 was first introduced in the early '70s, but nothing ever came of the plans. In the mid-90s, McDonnell Douglas did market the C-17 to civilian operators, but found little to no interest.
And it's a common misconception that the 747 is a civilian version of the Boeing offering in the original C-5 competition - other than the high-bypass engine technology, it was a different design:
From Boeing's web site:
Quote:
Following the loss of the competition for the gigantic military transport, the C-5A, Boeing set out to develop a large advanced commercial airplane to take advantage of the high bypass engine technology developed for the C-5A. The design philosophy behind the 747 was to develop a completely new plane, and other than the engines, the designers purposefully avoided using any hardware developed for the C-5.
Re: SICK: Military Assault Landing Videos
Quote:
Originally Posted by Idlewild
How come they don't sell it commercially? I'm going to guess because it goes by military spec that the C-17 is more performance oriented, i.e. "here to get the job done quickly" than it is miles per pound carried wise. Or is Boeing not allowed to sell civilian versions of military airplanes? I think the only civ version of a military carrier has been the Hercules and the B-747 when the C-5 was chosen over it.
Lockheed considered a commercial variant (with the designation L-500) after the C-5 was first introduced in the early '70s, but nothing ever came of the plans. In the mid-90s, McDonnell Douglas did market the C-17 to civilian operators, but found little to no interest.
And it's a common misconception that the 747 is a civilian version of the Boeing offering in the original C-5 competition - other than the high-bypass engine technology, it was a different design:
From Boeing's web site:
Quote:
Following the loss of the competition for the gigantic military transport, the C-5A, Boeing set out to develop a large advanced commercial airplane to take advantage of the high bypass engine technology developed for the C-5A. The design philosophy behind the 747 was to develop a completely new plane, and other than the engines, the designers purposefully avoided using any hardware developed for the C-5.
