Wrigth Pat C-17's?!

[motch]

Heard the news today.. no comments from anyone yet?
You guys haven't even gotten comfortable with you new (35+ yr old) C-5's and now you're gonna lose them?!
Was this something you were pushing for or just management?

Every day we hear new rumors here about the might C-17!

If ever there was a unit that should get the C-5M, it's here at Stewart~

Always
motch

 

[dudemize]

I suspect all the C-5As will eventually be retired and the 50 or so C-5Bs will be converted to Ms. I would like to see the A's converted but I don't see it happening. Base the M at Dover, Travis, and Westover (where all the Bs are now). Then make all the training in house like they do in the KC-10.

I would bet most of the Wright-Patt guys are happy to see C-17s on the way, although they are probably sick of Altus!

 

[flythere]

I say junk all but a hand full of the C-5's, maybe 8 or 10. Park then mid-country, Scott, Wright-Patt or some other central base, operated by both Active dooty and Reserve. Operate them as a SAAM unit, for special, outsized airlift projects This gives them heavy lift capability, which could reach either coast within two to three hours.

Take the money saved from maintaining and upgrading those other C-5's and purchase more C-17's and KC-767's. The 67's can carry almost as many pallets as the C-5. This would allow for a more reliable airlift fleet!

 

[airgator]

The 67's can carry almost as many pallets as the C-5/QUOTE]

So let me get this straight. The 76 can carry 19 pallets, the C-17 can haul a whopping 18. 1 C-5 can do 36. So it will take a 767 dragging a C-17 to do what 1 C-5 can. And oh by the way have fun cramming rolling stock on a 76. Sounds like a plan. Why pay to keep 1 in service when you can buy 2 at 6 times the price. No wonder we're broke.

 

[CrewDawg]

The 67's can carry almost as many pallets as the C-5/QUOTE]

So let me get this straight. The 76 can carry 19 pallets, the C-17 can haul a whopping 18. 1 C-5 can do 36. So it will take a 767 dragging a C-17 to do what 1 C-5 can. And oh by the way have fun cramming rolling stock on a 76. Sounds like a plan. Why pay to keep 1 in service when you can buy 2 at 6 times the price. No wonder we're broke.

It can carry 36 pallets, as long as it's not broke somewhere!

 

[skippy22]

Wrigth Pat? New Base... I know about Wright Pat...

 

[flythere]

Let's face it the C-5's reliability rate is note stellar! It's old and tired! The ER C-17's range and capability far surpasses what extra payload benifit derived from the C-5. The ability of the new tanker will augment the airlift fleet and add to the ability to move palletized cargo with more flexibility.

The better option would be to purchase 747-800's for hauling pallets around the system, cheaper to operate, would only require 3 pilots and two loads compared to the 8 to 12 person gaggle required to move a C-5.

Keeping a hand full of C-5's for special missions would be more than enough. A modern fleet of C-17's, KC-767's and 747-800 Freighters will be a very effective and more reliable airlift fleet!

I realize the FE union will bash and trash this post, just like when the C-17 came on line, I remember all the name calling and false rumors about the airplane. Almost all of them started by bitter engineers! Let's face it the era of flight engineers is coming to an end! As those older jets retire and are replaced with modern two person flight decks, there will be no need for that position.

 

[WMUSIGPI]

Let's face it the C-5's reliability rate is note stellar! It's old and tired! The ER C-17's range and capability far surpasses what extra payload benifit derived from the C-5. The ability of the new tanker will augment the airlift fleet and add to the ability to move palletized cargo with more flexibility.

The better option would be to purchase 747-800's for hauling pallets around the system, cheaper to operate, would only require 3 pilots and two loads compared to the 8 to 12 person gaggle required to move a C-5.

Keeping a hand full of C-5's for special missions would be more than enough. A modern fleet of C-17's, KC-767's and 747-800 Freighters will be a very effective and more reliable airlift fleet!

I realize the FE union will bash and trash this post, just like when the C-17 came on line, I remember all the name calling and false rumors about the airplane. Almost all of them started by bitter engineers! Let's face it the era of flight engineers is coming to an end! As those older jets retire and are replaced with modern two person flight decks, there will be no need for that position.

Sounds just like what happened in the 60's at the passenger airlines. The 737 originally had a FE sitting on the jumpseat to appease the unions. Now there aren't any FE's left at the passenger airlines and are quickly dropping off at the freight companies as well

 

[airgator]

The whole point of RERP is not so much for performance, but to enhance the reliability, and it has been doing that. Not to go into too much detail but the few M's that are out there have been doing more than their fair share hauling trash. The 747-8 is going for around 300 mil per tail, so good luck running that by congress. There is absolutely no need to have a fleet of civ only pallet aircraft, the Atlas's, Evergreen's and Kalitta's, etc., of the CRAF fleet have plenty of lift for us.

 

[flythere]

They don't need a fleet of them, maybe 15 to 20 placed on both coasts, again operated by both active dooty and reserve, keep them away from the guard; to difficult to get them full time when needed! Equipped with MWS, those -800's could deliver cargo directly into the AOR, vs the CRAF which drops most of that cargo off outside of the box, and it's trans-loaded onto 130's or 17's.

As for the engineer union, I remember the stories of United and another US carrier flying around with a third pilot on the jumpseat of the 737 for 2 or 3 years! Oh how times have changed.