C-5 or C-17

[chem_teacher_flies85]

Just curious, what would everybody prefer to fly the Galaxy or Globemaster? (I only ask because I saw a program comparing the two heavy lifters)

I know the C-17 is to replace many of the C-5's but let's say that they were both equally wanted/needed. And to spice things up, let's say the C-5 'rarely' breaks down.

Anybody have time in both?

Thanks

[BQZip01]

It depends entirely on what you are trying to do

[scudrunner12]

See the world and make a ton of per diem...

[Spoo]

Head to your nearest airport and talk to a C-5 crew. Chances are better than average that Fred is there waiting on parts.

[SVFR]

You don't need to go to the nearest airport, just turn on your TV. I saw a rice burning harpoon a C-5 out of the sky on one of the super bowl commercials.

[10percenttruth]

You don't need to go to the nearest airport, just turn on your TV. I saw a rice burning harpoon a C-5 out of the sky on one of the super bowl commercials.

Dafuq did I just read?

[Azimuth]

You don't need to go to the nearest airport, just turn on your TV. I saw a rice burning harpoon a C-5 out of the sky on one of the super bowl commercials.

[spaceman]

Dafuq did I just read?

We're talking vehicular warfare

[Fuzz]

You don't need to go to the nearest airport, just turn on your TV. I saw a rice burning harpoon a C-5 out of the sky on one of the super bowl commercials.

Well at least it got airborne for what looks like a couple seconds, has to be a new record.

[moosepileit]

Old thread above.

First- would you be Active Duty or Guard/Reserves?

Why? Because if Guard/Reserves you will pick the people and location as much as the airframe. (Actually, they choose you.) It'll likely take longer to upgrade to in-command in the Guard/Reserves, which may be a mixed blessing. YMWV.

C-5, unreliable winnebago, but that upper deck is crew and pax-friendly. If you can handle pounding the ramp to get airborne for more hours than many sorties log- you are rewarded with a nice ride. Even pretending it doesn't break down, you can't just point to the paper capabilities of the beast and say you'll use them.

I assume you'd pick the M-model, where they put 1980s motors on a 1960s design and act surprised that it performs so much better than the A or B. Still has a flight engineer, so check 'em for the anchor tattoo on their forearm before you try and get through any of their favorite locations without breaking.

Grab a unit's troops and their stuff and off you go. Effectively 2x+ the size of the C-17. Used to airdrop a little bit. Just enough so they could get the proof on video.

4000 hours and just over 10 years in the C-17- Fun to fly and a bit challenging to fly well. Your idea of "fun" may trying to be airline smooth and efficient anywhere in the world, whether or not you've ever been there before. Or, "tactical" may be your thing, ie- actually staying ahead of the beast and having the gear touchdown right where you want it each time, day or night. Might even get to chuck folks or their stuff out the back and use all 4 radios at basically the same time, with your friends just a few thousand feet away ready to critique your every word.

Like the USPS Priority mail "box" program- If it fits, it ships.

May not leave much room for you and your friends. Thanks to the realities of the C-5 and number produced, you'll bring in 2 to 69 C-17s and move stuff from A to B on time- which is anywhere from a shift early or two weeks late to the user. Not quite airliner reliable or pilot friendly. It is not a hobbyist endeavor for the crew. It grew up between the DC-10 and MD-11, so it isn't the best of old-fashioned steam gauge tech or the latest and greatest of all glass.

On paper, a jack of all trades. More than 2x as big as a C-130, but over-designed for replacing the C-141 in many ways. Burns a bunch of gas per mile flown- being a jack of all trades is costly. Just new enough that "workhorse" is still a new label to wear vs. the C-130, but post 9/11, it does fit the term.

I've stopped in under 1000' from touchdown with 30,000# of fuel and no cargo with almost no wind. That's 315,000# of gear moving at 120 MPH. Logged almost 15 hours with just a single air refueling. Many have gone much longer in one leg.

Either jet, you'll see a bunch of the planet. Sometimes, you'll never even leave the base you land at for an overnight. It might not even be night when you sleep. 4 to 5 star hotels and resorts others for lodging. One night backwoods, next night Bangkok. Then there are the tents/trailers and possible deployments. Running without a budget for the last handful of years has been increasingly less fun. I see a downhill slide to the post, so I'll stop here. It'll be what you make of it, most everyday.

[HercDude]

4000 hours and just over 10 years in the C-17- Fun to fly and a bit challenging to fly well. Your idea of "fun" may trying to be airline smooth and efficient anywhere in the world, whether or not you've ever been there before. Or, "tactical" may be your thing, ie- actually staying ahead of the beast and having the gear touchdown right where you want it each time, day or night. Might even get to chuck folks or their stuff out the back and use all 4 radios at basically the same time, with your friends just a few thousand feet away ready to critique your every word.

FIFY.

[moosepileit]

You are most welcome for the setup. Hooked me a marlin/well played/touche'.

Figured a herky could not resist, took only 52 minutes.

So far only the Brits have landed a C-130 w/o the gear of late...

I've had the nose gear light stay red twice. Once on my first in-command in OIF, once at the aux field. Got it sorted out both times ok. Had a main gear come unrigged once, that made for a long slow flight home. Thought I was in a herc since the limit speed is so low.

[Champ Kind]

Thought I was in a herc since the limit speed is so low.

Crickets...

[tunes]

I've stopped in under 1000' from touchdown with 30,000# of fuel and no cargo with almost no wind. That's 315,000# of gear moving at 120 MPH. Logged almost 15 hours with just a single air refueling. Many have gone much longer in one leg.

WOW a whole 315k? That's cute........

[Majestik Møøse]

...use all 4 radios at basically the same time, with your friends just a few thousand feet away ready to critique your every word.

I didn't know I could brag about this, now I'll tell my buddies in the DFAC about it after every sortie. Thanks!

[Day Man]

WOW a whole 315k? That's cute........

buuuurrrrrrrnnnnnn

[Azimuth]

WOW a whole 315k? That's cute........

That 315K actually took off though.

[moosepileit]

If the cross-mds d1ck measuring standards have been met, feel free to respond to the thread's O.P.

Wanna jabber, just keep the O'Knight thread rolling.

The 315k landing was an example. The O'Knight was obviously faster and heavier.

I thought stopping a jet in 1000' was cool. Ymmv, bwdik.

[HU&W]

Biggest difference is on the C-5, the weiner-mobile enters from the front.

On the C-17, the weiner-mobile enters from the rear.

[moosepileit]

Classically well played! Only would have been better had they been grazing on salads.

[tac airlifter]

Posts # 19 & 20 for the win. Well played.

[pcola]

yeah, weird. .....who would have ever thought this thread would take a turn towards dick measuring.

....to the OP, take a look at this picture and ask yourself which one is more attractive to you. Then you'll have your answer.

I guess that could be true, if you think of airplanes as a person to make you a sandwich or get you a beer.

As for the OP: If you want to either a) deploy to some shithole for 4 months at a pop and fly to the same auxiliary shitholes every other day, or b) get used like TACC's little bitch with 17 hour ground times between 24 hour days for 10 days at a time, go fly the Barney.

If you want to move more cargo, faster, and then get to enjoy your crew rest, without spending more than 2 days a month in Afcrapistan getting chiefed, fly Fred. And oh, BTW, you make more money broken in Rota, Ramstein, or Hickam than 3.50/day at any "undisclosed" location.

Edited February 7, 2013 by pcola

[itsokimapilot]

I guess that could be true, if you think of airplanes as a person to make you a sandwich or get you a beer.

As for the OP: If you want to either a) deploy to some shithole for 4 months at a pop and fly to the same auxiliary shitholes every other day, or b) get used like TACC's little bitch with 17 hour ground times between 24 hour days for 10 days at a time, go fly the Barney.

If you want to move more cargo, faster, and then get to enjoy your crew rest, without spending more than 2 days a month in Afcrapistan getting chiefed, fly Fred. And oh, BTW, you make more money broken in Rota, Ramstein, or Hickam than 3.50/day at any "undisclosed" location.

Deployment rates are about to change. No more 4 month deployments. I have had some not so good deal trips. I've been on many awesome trips too. You surely can move more cargo with Fred. Based on reliability rates, I doubt you move anything faster. TACC treats all of their assets like shit, if you think they intend to hook you up because you're a Fred crew, well I feel bad for you. As far as spending days in Afcrapistan, I have no idea what you're talking about. I've spent the night in the Stan once in ten years.

The C-17 isn't a Herk (got it). We do get to do some awesome tactical airlift still. I've been fortunate to do airdrop supporting FOBs and I've been to some places in the world that no C-5 would be able to go.

[scudrunner12]

Deployment rates are about to change. No more 4 month deployments.

What's the new plan?

[polcat]

Uh, 6 months?