Posted on 04/03/2006 5:10:20 AM PDT by Trust but Verify
No details per ABC radio
Fully loaded, that's about right. About double that in "ferry range" empty.
When we were lkiving near Ramstein Air Base. these birds flew through our attics every day--or so it seemed ;-)
Had to step out..There are two bunk rooms. Each room has three beds, one on each side as you walk in and one across the back wall above the foot of the other two. Each one has a restraining belt and an oxygen mask nearby.
The C-17 can carry an Abrams.
Thanks and Thanks!
At low speed , how is there performance, handling-wise? They don't handle like a fighter but I would think depending on conditions, they could be a bit sluggish at lower speeds,, 747-ish? maybe
Max fuel load when we flew back in the late 80s was 222,500 pounds. At take off power, we burned 12,000 pounds per hour per engine. At cruise we burned about 4000 pounds per hour per engine. WE cruised at mach .77. At that speed each engine burned about 1 quart of fuel per second. So we were burning about 5 gallons per mile.
I have a few photos on my home page.
If they really got this quote from a JCS spokesperson, then it is pure speculation.
Of course, it could very well be true.
http://www.delawareonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060403/NEWS/60403009
Here's a great story related to the crash. I tried to post it to a new thread, but I guess delawareonline doesn't allow us to post threads from their site.
Me too! (On a 141)
Thanks, BulletBobCo, I couldn't remember for sure if it was two or three bunks in each room. Alzheimer's I guess.
Great photos on your home page! Thanks for the memories!
That's good to know but I still think the Air Force should plan on a C-5 Galaxy size Replacement aircraft. The C-5 is getting up there in Years and it will be needed more as time go's by.
The C-17 is the backbone of the fleet, just look at the numbers, though I do agree a few more C-5s are needed.
The menu is on the right hand side of the page. Bird strikes are very costly.
You have FReepmail! Fortunately, the crew made it out alive, and that's about all I am allowed to say about this.
Do those passengers have an LCD set up so they can at least see what's going on outside? I love to fly, but I imagine a plane with minimum windows might be a bit claustrophobia-inducing, notwithstanding its size....
Saying the C5 is huge is an understatement.
Nice story.
I'm hearing this morning that the crew was having a problem with one engine. That thing should easily flying on three and even more easily make an approach and land on three. I just wonder if one of the four got hung up in reverse mode and they couldn't get it shut down? I hate to speculate.
Speaking of awesome. Years ago when I was working out of Dulles for a now defunct airline, I'd routinely see the Concord. The back gate access road allowed you to drive right under the close-in approach end of 1R. One day I saw it coming as I came through the gate and stopped my car and got out as it came overhead. It felt like it was going to take my head off. They carried lots of power all the way to touchdown.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.