Incredible photo of a USAF C-17 Globemaster III and the "Corridor-in-the-Clouds"

[FlyingJets]

Incredible photo of a USAF C-17 Globemaster III and the "Corridor-in-the-Clouds"

Incredible photo of a USAF C-17 Globemaster III and the "Corridor-in-the-Clouds"

Thought about attaching this post to the August 25, 2004 Prandtl-Glauert singularity condensation clouds thread (http://forums.lightinfo.com/showthread.php?t=38686), however, this stunning photograph of a U.S. Air Force C-17 Globemaster III military transport parting the clouds is just way too strange for that thread. Are their any active or former C-17 personnel/experts who are free to comment on the phenomenon?

October 10, 2004: C-17 Globemaster III Parting the Clouds
http://ChamorroBible.org/gpw/gpw-20041010.htm

October 2004 archive, page with archive links
http://ChamorroBible.org/gpw/gpw-2004-10-Fagualo-October.htm
http://ChamorroBible.org/gpw/gpw.htm

Though I marvel at the unexpected things these military jets trigger while in flight, this one, well...

 

[DoinTime]

Are their any active or former C-17 personnel/experts who are free to comment on the phenomenon?

Its not a phenomenon exclusive to C-17's or military jets in general. Anything from Citations to 747's will do exactly the same thing on a scale relative to the amount of wingtip vortice they create.

 

[VNugget]

Or a 172, for that matter. Or even a skydiver in a wingsuit.

 

[mattpilot]

hell, i even did it in a 172.

 

[FN FAL]

Or a 172, for that matter. Or even a skydiver in a wingsuit.

Hahaha...today we had a video guy who lost a "wing" while filming a tandem. Fortunately the tandem guy was one of those that could work "improv", so he turned circles with the video guy and the video turned out o.k. for the tandem customer. No vortices were made...so I'll spank myself for getting off topic!

To remain "on thread", I liked the pictures presented by the original poster, the C-17 looked majestic turning the cloud tops over. I like it! Thanks for posting the links to the images.

 

[C40_Pilot]

30, 20, Bam!

The C-17 definitely produces large wake vortices.
I've landed 45 seconds behind another C-17 in a formation landing. The wind was blowing just right and the vortices remained over the runway. At about 15' AGL, the vortices slammed us into the ground. Whoops.

Another vortice problem was that of personnel airdrop. When we tried to drop 200 lb mannequins from the plane, the vortices were causing them to do strange things. When mannequins were pushed out both doors, on both sides, they would collide in the middle behind the aircraft. We also found that if we tried to drop personnel in formation, the vortices of the preceeding aircraft created such a massive wake turbulence effect, that mannequins falling from trailing formation aircraft would sometimes get flipped inverted on their way down. Bummer if that happens to a real grunt. It tooks years of testing to figure out the right formation geometry so we could drop personnel in a 3 ship formation.

The picture looks pretty awesome, but as posted, the vortices produced are not unique to the C-17. Most any aircraft produces vortices at the wingtips, the magnitude varies.

 

[Hawker rider]

i can't see any pictures with these links though..

 

[crash-proof]

I think every photo session with photographer Paul Bowen has produced photos from every manufacturer you can think of with the vortices thru the clouds. It's almost cliche.

 

[Gatorman]

here is how you make your own

eh, C-17 stills are nice, check this out...be impressed.

http://www.gibstuff.net/aircraft/Videos/Angel-Decoys.zip

 

[FlyingJets]

The "Irrotational Plane Flows Of An Inviscid Fluid" website (http://www.diam.unige.it/~irro) at the University Of Genoa, Italy has some amazing photos in their gallery: http://www.diam.unige.it/~irro/gallery.html

 

[FlyingJets]

eh, C-17 stills are nice, check this out...be impressed.

http://www.gibstuff.net/aircraft/Videos/Angel-Decoys.zip

Impressed!

I can only imagine what it must have been like to see the C-17 doing the same thing while flying through Western South Carolina's clouds. I've got to give U.S. Air Force military photographer Staff Sgt. D. Myles Cullen buckets of credit for containing his excitement and snapping, in my opinion, an award-winning photo.

 

[RipCurl]

Each one of those flares is something like $72.

 

[mattpilot]

Each one of those flares is something like $72.

Each one of those engines is like $50/min

 

[RipCurl]

Yeah I guess you gotta put things into perspective...

 

[FlyingJets]

Surprise, surprise, a finished R/C model of the C-17 Globemaster III: http://homepage.eircom.net/~skycam/C-17A_Globemaster_III/

Once it's judged flight-worthy, "parting clouds" or "corridor-in-the-clouds" aside, it's going to be an impressive sight in the sky.

 

[RichO]

Having flown both aircraft......all I can say, is their both REALLY FUN!!!

 

[mattpilot]

Having flown both aircraft......all I can say, is their both REALLY FUN!!!

I'm sure you have an answer to this...

Why does the military insist on having "sticks" (or cyclics, like helicopters) instead of the civil "yoke" version... ?


Whats the benefit of doing it that way?

 

[FracCapt]

Hahaha...today we had a video guy who lost a "wing" while filming a tandem. Fortunately the tandem guy was one of those that could work "improv", so he turned circles with the video guy and the video turned out o.k. for the tandem customer. No vortices were made...so I'll spank myself for getting off topic!

Kudos to the TM....but I think he was referring to REAL wingsuits, not camera suits... Hey, I can say it, I fly both!

 

[VNugget]

I'm sure you have an answer to this...

Why does the military insist on having "sticks" (or cyclics, like helicopters) instead of the civil "yoke" version... ?


Whats the benefit of doing it that way?

I know this wasn't meant for me, but uhm, any cargo aircraft I can think of does have a yoke...

And as for fighters? Probably for the same reason civilian aerobatic planes have sticks... it's simpler to push in 2 axes rather to push and twist. Right?

 

[mattpilot]

I know this wasn't meant for me, but uhm, any cargo aircraft I can think of does have a yoke...

And as for fighters? Probably for the same reason civilian aerobatic planes have sticks... it's simpler to push in 2 axes rather to push and twist. Right?

no..... the C17 has a pair of Sticks.

http://www.airliners.net/open.file?id=148039&WxsIERv=TWNEb25uZWxsIERvdWdsYXMgQy0xN0EgR2xvYmVtYXN0ZXIgSUlJ&WdsYXMg=VVNBIC0gQWlyIEZvcmNl&QtODMg=QXZhbG9uIChHZWVsb25nKSAoQVZWIC8gWU1BVik%3D&ERDLTkt=QXVzdHJhbGlhIC0gVmljdG9yaWE%3D&ktODMp=RmVicnVhcnkgMjAwMQ%3D%3D&BP=0&WNEb25u=SWFuIE1veQ%3D%3D&xsIERvdWdsY=&MgTUQtODMgKE=VGhlIGNvY2twaXQgb2YgdGhlIEMxNyBhdCBBdmFsb24gQWlyc2hvdyAyMDAxLg%3D%3D&YXMgTUQtODMgKERD=NTAxNA%3D%3D&NEb25uZWxs=MjAwMS0wMy0xMA%3D%3D&ODJ9dvCE=&O89Dcjdg=&static=yes




and another one:

http://www.airliners.net/open.file?id=612018&WxsIERv=TWNEb25uZWxsIERvdWdsYXMgQy0xN0EgR2xvYmVtYXN0ZXIgSUlJ&WdsYXMg=VVNBIC0gQWlyIEZvcmNl&QtODMg=QmVybGluIC0gU2Nob25lZmVsZCAoU1hGIC8gRUREQik%3D&ERDLTkt=R2VybWFueQ%3D%3D&ktODMp=TWF5IDE2LCAyMDA0&BP=0&WNEb25u=QmVybmQgTGF3cmVueg%3D%3D&xsIERvdWdsY=OTYtMDAwNg%3D%3D&MgTUQtODMgKE=Q29ja3BpdC12aWV3IHRha2VuIGZyb20gY2FwdGFpbnMgc2VhdA%3D%3D&YXMgTUQtODMgKERD=MzE5OA%3D%3D&NEb25uZWxs=MjAwNC0wNy0wMg%3D%3D&ODJ9dvCE=&O89Dcjdg=&static=yes

 

[RipCurl]

So the heavy drivers can play Top Gun too








BTW - C-5, C-130, and C-141 all have yokes. Perhaps it's a Lockheed thing?

 

[VNugget]

Well sheeit. Color me dumbfounded.

I stand corrected.

 

[Singlecoil]

By the way....

My personal pet peeve:

singular=vortex, plural=vortices.

Just like...

singular=index, plural=indices

 

[C40_Pilot]

The stick on a C-17 is even fly by wire. There are four redundant flight control computers that turn stick movement into flight control actuation. There is also a mechanical backup. The plane also trims itself. So when you set 10 degress nose up and let go, voila, you stay at 10 degrees nose up.

It's very responsive too. Infact, during air-refueling, the plane enters "AR mode", which dampens down the responsiveness of the controls. Helps the pilot not over-react to staying behind the tanker.

Nothing like coming up initial at 500' AGL and pushing the stick to the left stop, entering about 45 deg of bank, throwing down gear and flaps and landing in 2000'. What a great plane, I miss her sometimes.

 

[purduej]

Looks like you guys made an impression. The picture was turned into a Fark Photoshop contest: http://forums.fark.com/cgi/fark/comments.pl?IDLink=1160585

 

[Loafman]

Surprise, surprise, a finished R/C model of the C-17 Globemaster III: http://homepage.eircom.net/~skycam/C-17A_Globemaster_III/

Once it's judged flight-worthy, "parting clouds" or "corridor-in-the-clouds" aside, it's going to be an impressive sight in the sky.

Let's hope it does better than the big B-52 shaped RC wreck last month.

 

[FlyingJets]

The C-17 definitely produces large wake vortices.
I've landed 45 seconds behind another C-17 in a formation landing. The wind was blowing just right and the vortices remained over the runway. At about 15' AGL, the vortices slammed us into the ground. Whoops.

Another vortice problem was that of personnel airdrop. When we tried to drop 200 lb mannequins from the plane, the vortices were causing them to do strange things. When mannequins were pushed out both doors, on both sides, they would collide in the middle behind the aircraft. We also found that if we tried to drop personnel in formation, the vortices of the preceeding aircraft created such a massive wake turbulence effect, that mannequins falling from trailing formation aircraft would sometimes get flipped inverted on their way down. Bummer if that happens to a real grunt. It tooks years of testing to figure out the right formation geometry so we could drop personnel in a 3 ship formation.

The picture looks pretty awesome, but as posted, the vortices produced are not unique to the C-17. Most any aircraft produces vortices at the wingtips, the magnitude varies.

Having flown both aircraft......all I can say, is their both REALLY FUN!!!

As pilots (and crew) can you see these spectacular and massive vortices/wakes via something along the lines of an electronic rear-view mirror? Or is it only through photos? And speaking of photos, how in the world do you get a shot like that? The picture is so sharp, big, and appears to have been taken from a wide-angle. Was another C-17 involved? Then there's the matter of keeping the camera steady when seeing something like this. It would certainly be interesting to hear or read the behind-the-scenes story from USAF military photographer who took this great shot.

 

[FlyingJets]

Boeing 747 making a "tunnel-in-the-clouds"?

In response to the C-17 Globemaster III "corridor-in-the-clouds" photo (elsewhere on the 'net) someone posted a link to what appears to be a Boeing 747 making a tunnel-in-the-clouds. Here's the link:

http://www.planepictures.net/netshow.php?id=234765

Is the pic real? Can a B747 really do this?

 

[VNugget]

Yes. Here's a pretty good writeup on tip vortices/wake turbulence and how any lift-producing airfoil produces them.

 

[FlyingJets]

Yes. Here's a pretty good writeup on tip vortices/wake turbulence and how any lift-producing airfoil produces them.

That's a good article (http://www.avweb.com/news/airman/183095-1.html). Thanks for pointing it out.

A post in the "Winglets" thread (#32 by mzaharis, http://forums.flightinfo.com/showthread.php?t=41780) references Chapter 3: Airfoils and Airflow (http://www.av8n.com/how/htm/airfoils.html) in See How It Flies by John S. Denker. While reading it with the C-17 and B747 photos in mind, another thought--really more of a "how remarkable" feeling--began to creep in: the birds, tiny hummingbirds, long-winged eagles, Blue Herons, and yes even the sparrows, "know" and "understand"--without having read a single textbook--the laws of aerodynamics, wing design, flight control, and piloting. And on top of that, they're good-looking and make flying appear as an effortless and simple activity!