A C-17 to join the collection at the NMUSAF soon!

[mrhenniger]

The experimental and prototype aircraft can be more interesting than the aircraft that were put into production. They represent the “what if”, and how many have wondered what they would have been like if they had entered service.

I could not agree more. For that same reason I think the shuttle Enterprise was the best catch out of all of the surviving shuttles.

Mike

[hcvdg]

I was fortunate to have been invited to fly aboard T-1's first, and last flight.

The rest of the four first flight crew members were unable to participate (I was still flying - good to be the young guy). I was proud to represent the rest of the FF crew on her induction flight.

I hope she finds a place of honor inside one of these days.

I look forward to visiting her at the NMUSAF and have set a personal goal of being there for her 50th Birthday (15 SEP 41). I will be 83.

Yes, a repaint in green would be nice. Her nose boom is in the rafters of the NMUSAF annex at Edwards AFB.

T-1 has a lot of life left in her, I wouldn't be surprised if folks try to get her out of the museum and back in service.

A fine addition to the NMUSAF collection.

Henry

[bdk]

There are at least plans for parts of T-1 to continue in testing, if not flying. I too would love to see the nose boom and green camo put back on. Otherwise it looks like just about every other C-17.

[Boeing666]

I have also heard that they are adding a C-5 to the NMUSAF also that will go in that new hangar that opens I think in 2015/2016.

[Dan Jones]

The C-17 is an awesome airplane capable of doing things us Herc guys can only dream about...

But...

When the last C-17 goes to the boneyard, you can bet that that crew is gonna catch a ride home in the back of a C-130.

[RickH]

When the last C-17 goes to the boneyard, you can bet that that crew is gonna catch a ride home in the back of a C-130.

C-47

[Ken]

For me, the roots of the C-17/C-130 debate are not capability oriented, but largely political. The C-17 is a great airplane, but it was sold as a do-all, go-anywhere, poops gold machine. Ads started touting its greatness before it was actually great and you would have thought the C-130 never existed if you looked at any AF literature, ads, etc.

Let me share an example. A typical legacy Herk crew is 6, including a Nav & FE. We're accustomed to flying 300' low level and making reasonably precise airdrops. The C-17 was touted as a 2-man cockpit crew doing the work of the Herk's 4 (and the C-130J boasts the same). However, I well remember being at Red Flag around '02 and the C-17 crews making hideous 600+ yard drops. They were also carrying a 3rd pilot to help with the workload ... this was a pilot who had no special training and who probably didn't want to be riding when he'd rather be flying. And they were traveling with flying crew chiefs to do the preflights, etc. So, basically, the FE position (of which some of the most talented guys I've ever worked with are) and Nav positions were eliminated and replaced with two other guys who weren't listed as part of the mandatory crew. Two career fields of specially trained and (typically) proud/motivated individuals were replaced by stand-ins.

The other issue is what the airplane can do vs what it will realistically be tasked to do. The C-5 was also touted as a dirt runway bird ... how often does that happen? Truth is, commanders weigh costs and will not commit C-17s to certain operations because they are too valuable; C-130s are more expendable in some cases and I don't have a problem with that - it is what it is. So, whether a C-17 can land in a dirt parking lot or not, the capability is moot if it's never exercised.

I could go on, but let me reiterate, I like the C-17 and respect it for what it can do. What I don't like is when a PR image is shaped and shoved down our collective throats when it isn't quite accurate. Kinda reminds me of the blitz to buy the C-27J. "We're not flying our Herks full, so we surely can do this more efficiently with a C-27J ...." No matter that the Herk wasn't full that day because it was 122F on the ramp and the SID required a 510'/NM gradient to clear terrain. There's more to this than meets the eye.

Ken

[bdk]

When the last C-17 goes to the boneyard, you can bet that that crew is gonna catch a ride home in the back of a C-130.

That's a good tag line, but it won't happen. The C-17 is designed for a much longer lifetime. The only reason T-1 is being retired is because it would be too expensive to upgrade to the standard of the current production aircraft. They already have P-122 as the other dedicated flight test aircraft at Edwards AFB.

The USAF already priced what it would cost to upgrade T-1 when they were considering using it to replace the aircraft that crashed at Elmendorf.

I think you'll find after the Tempo of operations in the gulf, that the crew training issues are in the past. C-17s are being put in harms way on a daily basis. Just ask Brad if you don't believe me. Combat descents and night vision goggle landings are commonplace, one aircraft was hit by a shoulder launched rocket which penetrated just aft of the cockpit and thankfully didn't detonate (it was a dud).

Right now the C-17 is doing MORE than it was originally designed to do, not less, and is maintaining better than its contractual 85% mission capability rate. What is the C-5s, maybe 35%? The C-130 is an iconic aircraft, but it does not offer the throughput that the C-17 does.

[Dan Jones]

Well, whichever one flies last, it's a fair bet that nobody walking the earth today will be around to see the last landing of either the last Herc or the last C-17.

[Boeing666]

Especially since C-130s and C-17s are still coming off the line and they keep updating the C-130 with new models. The H Models and before might be gone as the J-30s come in.