The sky-high aircraft and aviation thread

Details about the operational histories of the aircraft are sketchy at best. However, given the fact that the Candides form the backbone of the Russia's airlift assets, I’m sure the huge geographical expanses of the country keep the fleet busy hauling around supplies here and there.

While it’s certainly logical for the early Il-76s to have been exported or placed in reserve by this point in time, the vast majority of the fleet are still going to be stuck with older kit for now into the near future; according to the page on Military Transport Aviation on The Other Wiki, the modernization and refitting program for the Candides is rolling around with the speed of a dial-up connection - despite the effort beginning in 2002, only two aircraft were “modernized” (whatever that means) by 2005. Despite there being 220 or so in Russian service, the official plan was to have a disappointingly miniscule 12 Il-76 aircraft be upgraded to the MD-90 variant before 2010.

Boeing will have another 15 C-17's according to The Other Wiki. They are still looking at more foreign orders.

Given that a lot of early model C-130's are heading to the scrap yard, the A 400 M could break into that old market. But again, the C-17 and C-130J have price and new fancy features on their side.

The C-17 can change it's cargo floor with the push of a button. From pallet rollers to a flat floor. The old C-141 and the C-5 need their floor panels to be flipped over. Most of the Airload instructors talked about how much of a P.I.T.A. that was.

The worst airlift is the KC-10: cramped, hard to move and when shipping HMMWV's or other outsided cargo (for the KC-10) it takes hours to get it on and off.

Plus it's more noisy and cold than the KC-135 or C-17.

All night at the computer, cuz people ain't that great. I keep to myself so I won't be a case on The First 48

Since we are on a cargo aircraft tangent, here's a question I've had for a bit: How dependent is cargo aircraft crew size (in terms of loadmasters, engineers etc.) on the size or load capacities of the aircraft?

I have disagreed with her a lot, but comparing her to republicans and propagandists of dictatorships is really low. - An idiot

Incidentally, the only reason there are C-17s in Aussie and UK service is because when they were acquired, their capabilities far outshone those of the A400Ms that they had been planning to acquire. Which is to say, the C-17s were capable of flight and carrying cargo.

And of course, when the C-130Js get phased out in 2022 (well, 2035, since 2022 is when they plan to replace them and it is military procurement we're talking about...), the easiest solution would probably be to just buy some more C-130s (K, L, whatever).

Regarding old airframes, there are KC-135s flying in USAF service that date back to 1962. Those are the newer shinier examples of the KC-135, of course, the airframe having been in service since the early 50s. They have seen a number of refits and modifications over time, of course. I'd also bet the KC-135 might nudge the KC-10 out for the honor of worst airlifter, since the KC-135 can only haul 6 pallets of cargo and is much skinnier than the KC-10.

Granted, the KC-135 isn't designed to be an airlifter, but strictly speaking, neither is the KC-10 (both are primarily designed for air-to-air refueling, with cargo airlift being a secondary mission, arguably a tertiary one for the -135).

The RAF's old Hercs were already Ks.

edited 1st Sep '14 6:21:45 AM by Deadbeatloser22

"Yup. That tasted purple."

Indeed, the RAF are in the process of getting the three with the lowest hours as Rivet Joints...

Keep Rolling On

In terms of crew, older aircraft had a flight engineer, some larger ones (the C-5 for instance) need a flight engineer. The smaller aircraft use one loadmaster, others can have two.

All night at the computer, cuz people ain't that great. I keep to myself so I won't be a case on The First 48

Question, what does the loadmaster actually do?

Determining how much load the plane can carry and how to place it. Because ill-placed cargo can shift in flight and destabilize the flight, or make the plane tail-, nose- or side-heavy and cause flight problems.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman

Stops this from happening:

Schild und Schwert der Partei

Courtesy Link.

"Yup. That tasted purple."

The Loadmaster's word is law:

• Vehicles loaded can't have too much fuel in the tanks, the vapors are flameable.

• Batteries, loose metal bits (like the tools on military vehicles) are to be taped down.

• Making sure pallets are secure and not overweight.

• Shoring all outsized cargo, any load that has a non-standard shape (a tractor and trailer disconnected for instance) gets wooden shoring to help it stay put.

• Making sure that the cargo is clean: no leaking chemicals, no dirt, everything strapped down, nothing that would damage the aircraft.

• Making sure that the cargo is in compliance with local, federal and internation laws (i.e. no critters trying to hitch a ride, no troops trying to sneak a gold idol in a truck's fuel tank).

If the loadmaster finds something wrong, he or she can refuse to take it. And it's the shipping unit or civilian company that has to fix it.

edited 1st Sep '14 1:41:57 PM by TairaMai

All night at the computer, cuz people ain't that great. I keep to myself so I won't be a case on The First 48

Aviation Week's pilot report...of the SR-71 (pdf).

Schild und Schwert der Partei

You say that like someone has tried.

"Yup. That tasted purple."

They also hand out peanuts, coffee, and in-flight meals when the plane is carrying passengers.

edited 1st Sep '14 3:08:44 PM by AFP

Nah, he probably watched Three Kings - but I can imagine at least one mischievous U.S soldier tried to make off with a bar of Saddam's gold at some point in time.

Ah yeah, after OIF I, US Customs sent agents at most large FOB's, airbases and ports. From cash to gold to drug and other contraband, servicemembers tried to get stuff out.

Oil drums and vehicle fuel tanks being popular, thus they got searched often.

On the C-17 out of Hawaii, we got those cheezy Air Force "Ground Meals"...and I got those in Korea when we were on alert.

I hate Snickers bars now. What is it with you Zoomies and snickers, overcooked cold fried chicken and white bread?

I guess all those hot AF girls have your cooks Distracted by the Sexy...

edited 1st Sep '14 5:14:57 PM by TairaMai

All night at the computer, cuz people ain't that great. I keep to myself so I won't be a case on The First 48

Hah, flight lunches, which are never to be referred to as Box Nasties. I remember my one experience with such a feast, they handed it to me fridge-cold, with a can of iced tea, bag of candy, bag of chips, bottle of water, and a cold ham and cheese sandwich.

The plane ended up spending several hours that morning sitting on the tarmac with the engines running before we could take off, and it got blazing hot because evidently they can't effectively AC the cabin until the plane is airborne (long story short, it was an incentive flight on a refueling tanker, which naturally wasn't going to take off until they were sure they plane they were refueling, which was having engine trouble in another state, was ready to take off). By the time the mission was finally a go, we took off, lunch time rolled around, and I opened the box nasty to find it had gotten so hot that the sandwich was now a hot ham and cheese sandwich, with the cheese all melty and such.

The sandwich went straight into the trash, unopened, because unlike the fine hard working folks in the Force Support Squadron and the Chow Hall, I'm not a fan of food poisoning. Incidentally, we flew around over Oklahoma for a bit and returned to base because it turned out that the plane we were waiting on which we had been informed had finally dealt with its shit and launched was in fact still sitting on the tarmac in Texas, still broken down, and nobody admitting to being the one who claimed it was fixed and ready to take off, meaning the entire flight was mostly a waste of time.

---

Oh, and let's talk about the Customs guys. In my seven years of service, I have never met any man or woman who enjoyed the sound of their own voice as much as the Customs agent at Manas, who gave the same briefing, verbatim (including the quips and jokes between talking points) to us five times in 3 days.

When he got to the end with "Any questions?" I was tempted to raise my hand and ask him to repeat all of that because I hadn't been paying attention.

edited 1st Sep '14 5:40:48 PM by AFP

Which is peculiar. A gas tank with 1/4 full is much more explosive and dangerous than one that is 3/4 full. Especially on a hard impact.

Maybe JP-8 has different properties than unleaded gas?

"Allah may guide their bullets, but Jesus helps those who aim down the sights."

I'm not even sure if JP-8 has vapors. I know it is supposed to be very difficult to light on fire by design.

Isn't that how that TWA flight blew up over the East Coast in The '90s, what with the heavily vaporized jet fuel due only having a small amount in the tank? Well, assuming nobody here believes in the conspiracy theories.

edited 1st Sep '14 8:08:50 PM by FluffyMcChicken

^ I believe that was a symptom/problem of TWA 800. Because by contrast the planes on 9/11 simply burned forever rather than exploding in a (bigger than it did) blockbuster because they had nearly full tanks of gas.

Liquid fuels be hard to explode, but if you get them to...GET THE FUCK OUT OF DODGE.

"Allah may guide their bullets, but Jesus helps those who aim down the sights."

Remember, at the lower pressures at latitude, even JP-8 will start to vaporize. The aircraft won't be pressurized to sea level. All loose metal is taped down to prevent sparks.

All night at the computer, cuz people ain't that great. I keep to myself so I won't be a case on The First 48

Slightly off topic but on the BLEVE thing, that was what took out those firemen and salvagemen at the Cheapside Whisky Bond Fire?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheapside_Street_Whisky_Bond_Fire

I never knew that was the cause of that thing. I remember passing by the memorial to the firemen and salvagemen on my way back home a few weeks ago but I had no idea the fire was that bad.

More on topic. What's the USMC/US Navy/US Airforce's Plan B if the Pigeon ends up a total failure? There has to be one, given that Congress historically doesn't like chucking good money after bad after a certain point in a program's lifetime. Witness the GCV, the DIVAADS and the XB-70 Valkyrie.

Oh, found this wiki walking. It's a theoretical study on how to kill the F-35. Wonder how valid it still is?

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-NOTAM-030907-1.html

edited 1st Sep '14 11:04:21 PM by TamH70