SICK: Military Assault Landing Videos

[Matt Molnar]

sNCULxst94c

n8OSDGRCivw

RQBGDsakXbM

[PhilDernerJr]

I'd hate guessing, but it looks like that C-17 stopped within 1,000ft! Jesus.

[USAF Pilot 07]

It's a pretty wild ride... I've been on board several assault landings in the -17 - some at night with no airfield lights on NVGs, it's pretty sweet... The final approach speed is something ridiculous not much more than 100 knots...

The C-17 is one of, if not the only, aircraft that increases power in the flare... The aircraft pretty much sinks like a rock, and they increase power short of touchdown to put it in a flare to execute a smooth landing.... Wild...

[cancidas]

I'd hate guessing, but it looks like that C-17 stopped within 1,000ft! Jesus.
i only believe it now that i've seen it firsthand.

[Derf]

If that were an airliner...they would not need the announcment to put your tray tables in their full and upright position. It would be done automaticly.........and Smoking on every flight (from the carbon fiber brakes!!!)

[Ari707]

do they have a back up camera?

[mirrodie]

Great footage. The C-17 is my favorite bird, simply a sharp looking aircraft and a great performer!

[JHNA57]

I cannot believe that my 25 yr old nephew (USAF Academy 2005??) pilots one of these birds out of Dover De. He has even flown a support mission into JFK. (Talk about having the world by the "Balls")

[Nick]

do they have a back up camera?
They lower the ramp, and the loadmaster spots the plane back.

[Matt Molnar]

Boeing oughta sell a C-17 VIP.

[moose135]

They lower the ramp, and the loadmaster spots the plane back.
For their demo at the McGuire this year, he was watching out the side aft door:

http://moose135.smugmug.com/photos/391619309_RitGZ-L.jpg

Watching the C-17 demo, I'm amazed at the capabilities of that aircraft - down low, flying it like a fighter, it's just incredible to see!

[cancidas]

The C-17 is one of, if not the only, aircraft that increases power in the flare...
i wonder if that isn't done more to have the engines spinning and ready to reverse than to make a nice soft touchdown. from what i've seen that airplane do the landings are all but soft...

[JHNA57]

From what I understand, the C-17 has to literally "slam" on the runway to deploy the spoilers

[JHNA57]

From what I understand, the C-17 has to literally "slam" on the runway to deploy the spoilers

[USAF Pilot 07]

The C-17 is one of, if not the only, aircraft that increases power in the flare...
i wonder if that isn't done more to have the engines spinning and ready to reverse than to make a nice soft touchdown. from what i've seen that airplane do the landings are all but soft...


Negative... The C-17 doesn't "flare" the way a traditional airplane does... Instead a power push is applied just prior to landing to reduce impact force... While the landings may look "hard", they really aren't that bad from inside the airplane when done correctly. On all the -17 flights I've been on, I didn't think the landings were much rougher from landings on other a/c, except for maybe some of the assault landings...
You would definitely be able to tell (at least from inside the aircraft) if the power push was not sufficient.

[USAF Pilot 07]

The C-17 is one of, if not the only, aircraft that increases power in the flare...
i wonder if that isn't done more to have the engines spinning and ready to reverse than to make a nice soft touchdown. from what i've seen that airplane do the landings are all but soft...


Negative... The C-17 doesn't "flare" the way a traditional airplane does... Instead a power push is applied just prior to landing to reduce impact force... While the landings may look "hard", they really aren't that bad from inside the airplane when done correctly. On all the -17 flights I've been on, I didn't think the landings were much rougher from landings on other a/c, except for maybe some of the assault landings...
You would definitely be able to tell (at least from inside the aircraft) if the power push was not sufficient.

[Idlewild]

Boeing oughta sell a C-17 VIP.


How come they don't sell it commercially? I'm going to guess because it goes by military spec that the C-17 is more performance oriented, i.e. "here to get the job done quickly" than it is miles per pound carried wise. Or is Boeing not allowed to sell civilian versions of military airplanes? I think the only civ version of a military carrier has been the Hercules and the B-747 when the C-5 was chosen over it.

[Idlewild]

Boeing oughta sell a C-17 VIP.


How come they don't sell it commercially? I'm going to guess because it goes by military spec that the C-17 is more performance oriented, i.e. "here to get the job done quickly" than it is miles per pound carried wise. Or is Boeing not allowed to sell civilian versions of military airplanes? I think the only civ version of a military carrier has been the Hercules and the B-747 when the C-5 was chosen over it.

[moose135]

How come they don't sell it commercially? I'm going to guess because it goes by military spec that the C-17 is more performance oriented, i.e. "here to get the job done quickly" than it is miles per pound carried wise. Or is Boeing not allowed to sell civilian versions of military airplanes? I think the only civ version of a military carrier has been the Hercules and the B-747 when the C-5 was chosen over it.
Lockheed considered a commercial variant (with the designation L-500) after the C-5 was first introduced in the early '70s, but nothing ever came of the plans. In the mid-90s, McDonnell Douglas did market the C-17 to civilian operators, but found little to no interest.

And it's a common misconception that the 747 is a civilian version of the Boeing offering in the original C-5 competition - other than the high-bypass engine technology, it was a different design:

From Boeing's web site (http://www.boeing.com/history/boeing/747.html):

Following the loss of the competition for the gigantic military transport, the C-5A, Boeing set out to develop a large advanced commercial airplane to take advantage of the high bypass engine technology developed for the C-5A. The design philosophy behind the 747 was to develop a completely new plane, and other than the engines, the designers purposefully avoided using any hardware developed for the C-5.

[moose135]

How come they don't sell it commercially? I'm going to guess because it goes by military spec that the C-17 is more performance oriented, i.e. "here to get the job done quickly" than it is miles per pound carried wise. Or is Boeing not allowed to sell civilian versions of military airplanes? I think the only civ version of a military carrier has been the Hercules and the B-747 when the C-5 was chosen over it.
Lockheed considered a commercial variant (with the designation L-500) after the C-5 was first introduced in the early '70s, but nothing ever came of the plans. In the mid-90s, McDonnell Douglas did market the C-17 to civilian operators, but found little to no interest.

And it's a common misconception that the 747 is a civilian version of the Boeing offering in the original C-5 competition - other than the high-bypass engine technology, it was a different design:

From Boeing's web site (http://www.boeing.com/history/boeing/747.html):

Following the loss of the competition for the gigantic military transport, the C-5A, Boeing set out to develop a large advanced commercial airplane to take advantage of the high bypass engine technology developed for the C-5A. The design philosophy behind the 747 was to develop a completely new plane, and other than the engines, the designers purposefully avoided using any hardware developed for the C-5.