C-5 vs C-17

Maximilian_Jenius

Maximilian_Jenius

Super User
Sorry if this sounds like an a.net question, but what plane is better the C-5 or the C-17?

I personally like the C-17, and I've talked to a few ASU boys with military aspirations and they all seem to prefer to get the C-5 out of UPT then the -17?

Anyone know why? I'd think the -17 would be the new hotness as, well it's newer and probably glass. And as such would give all the young boys the bigger hard-on vs the older six pack C-5.

What gives..also does the AF have any plans to replace the C-5 with a newer aircraft?
 
I think the C17 would be alot more exciting to fly. I did a 2 week TDY to Charleston AFB, and i saw the C17s come and go all day long. Their short field performance is amazing!!

but from i hear (mostly frog flyer) the deployments are better on the C-5. Maybe thats why the ASU boys want to 5. Because the would rather do a day in spain, germany, then home. rather than 60-120s in the sand.
 
2 completely different animals IMO. I spent 4 years on the C-5, cleaning up it's mess but there was always that special feeling I got about the largest airplane in the USAF inventory. It used to be a Hub-Hub/Hub-Spoke airplane, but it's now primarly a Hub-Hub airplane. The C-5 can do some pretty neat things. It can be knelt to the ground in multiple positions for ease of cargo loading. The gear can be castered on the ground for lowering the stress of turns at high weights (the inflight caster/crosswind system was deactivated years ago). Cargo can be loaded from one end as cargo is unloaded from the other. The landing gear system itself is a marvel. It's an old airplane. The A models are very rough. The B models not as much. However, the B model is very maitenance intensive likely because of it's shear size, the materials used in production, and the complexity of the different systems. The C-5 has the capability to fly into unimproved fields, but the AF doesn't like to use it for that mission with the C-130 and especially now with the C-17.

I know very little about the C-17 but have heard nothing but good things from pilots and maintainers, with the exception of the lifestyle. It's not easy doing the Hub-Spoke thing in the AF.
 
Like Falcon said, two completely different animals with plus and minuses to both. The C17 is definitely the new hotness. Not only does it have glass, but it also has a stick and HUD. The Loadmaster has his own little cockpit downstairs and everything is ALOT more automated; no manhandling vehicle ramps or turning pallet locks by hand. The C-5 is the big boy. Nowadays, the shear cost of doing business with it lends it to specialed cargo missions that go to large military airfields. The 17 took over the 141 job of linehaul pallet missions and specialized downrange stuff.

My cousin recently switched from the 130 to Fred. He called me from SAT one night and said, "we are sitting in the flight deck. It is raining like crazy. We actually have to pull the Radar out so it does not get wet."
 
Well it beats my downstairs office of red seats! Most of the time though, we just sat at the nav station upstairs, as navs were only used on Airdrop when I was in.

Plus they have a laptop to do the W&B on...I had a dulled No.2 and a Form F!
 
Depends on what you mean by "better". I'm from the C-5 community, so I'm obviously biased. That said, I tried attaching a GAO report that outlines the cost-benefit analysis and recommendations for modernizing the C-5 fleet versus buying more C-17s from a capabilities point of view (after all, that's what matters w/r/t/ national strategy, right?) Unfortunately, the size of the file exceeded the allowance for the forum, so you'll have to google it yourself.

But, I don't work in the pentagon or in Washington D.C, so I'll have to focus on what's "better" from the point of view of an operator. Yea, we all know the C-17s are "glass", but most of the C-5s are too and the rest of them should be done within the next couple of years. In fact, I'm going to training for the Avionics Modernization Program (AMP) next month. Somebody mentioned "deloyments". Well, I don't do them, unless I choose to. Our trips are normally scheduled at 4-5 days either eastbound or westbound, and I return home at the end of each trip. I've never stayed in a tent downrange and have never processed through a real mobility line. I've never been to the real dangerous gargen spots in the old A model legacy planes (just the Iraq overflights at cruise altitude, although the possibility exists that I could go. When I'm 'amped', I'll probably go more frequently "over there". Frankly, I've been to more dangerous places with my civilian job. Anyway, these deployments to crapholes is routine for the -17. Yes, we sometimes break down for a couple of weeks and take government-funded vacations to places like Hawaii and Europe in Fred. On the other hand, the C-5s reliability usually has us digging into emergency procedures on just about every trip. Still, I'd say our safety record is relatively good. And, we do carry flight engineers, so our chances of landing with the gear up are that much less :D
 
I like the old C5s just because of how awesome they sound.

The new engines aren't quite as impressive though...
 
I like the C-17 myself. The C-5 is pretty sweet, however.

There was just something about seeing all the 17's in Hawai'i on the beach that was so mesmerizing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top