# Lighter Note: Canoe.ca Finds C-17 Sexy!



## Hunteroffortune (29 Aug 2007)

Okay, I just had to share this report on the C-17 and it's first landing at Kandahar. Can you catch the error? 

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/War_Terror/2007/08/29/4456674-cp.html

_Canadian C-17's first landing smooth and with little fanfare in Kandahar

By MARTIN OUELLET
    
KANDAHAR, Afghanistan (CP) - In the pitch darkness of night, the Canadian military's new C-17 transport plane touched down softly at Kandahar Military Airport on Wednesday in southern Afghanistan. 

The pilots landed the giant carrier with its lights extinguished, guided solely by night-vision goggles. "We took a tactical approach with the night-vision goggles, with the airplane lights turned off, with the engines idling," said Maj. Jean Maisonneuve, chief check pilot at 429 Transport Squadron, 8 Wing, in Trenton, Ont. 

"In a way, we're sort of pioneers." 

The gigantic, 200-tonne bird of steel is *sexpected*   ;D to have an effect on Canadian troop confidence as they continue to battle with Taliban insurgents, Maisonneuve said in a short interview shortly after landing. 

"This plane will have a positive impact on the morale of the troops. Speaking with my colleagues, I can tell you that everyone is happy to know that we have modern tools at our disposal and a better (transport) capacity than before," he said. 

The C-17, a four-engine military transport plane built by Boeing, is phenomenal. 

It is a little more than 52 metres long, seven metres wide and has a 52-metre wingspan. The inside is about 16 metres tall. 

The new planes can carry four-times the amount of cargo of the Hercules C-130 transport planes, formerly the largest planes in the Canadian fleet. The C-17s are designed to replace some of the aging Hercules fleet. 

The C-17s can also travel twice as fast, reaching up to 80 per cent of the speed of sound, and have a cruising speed of 1,000 kilometres an hour. 

In its giant belly, the plane can carry 77,000 tonnes of cargo, including vehicles, and can transport up to 100 soldiers. 

"We could say that a C-17 is capable of doing the work of six Hercules," Maisonneuve said. 

The planes have not come without their controversy and certainly didn't come cheap. 

In total, the four planes purchased by the Canadian government will cost about $3.4 billion, a bill that caused a tremendous political upheaval in the House of Commons. 

Former defence minister Gordon O'Connor justified the purchase of the four planes as they would make it easier to transport large quantities of materials for humanitarian missions abroad in the future, as well as help at home. 

Last week, the C-17 made its inaugural flight by transporting aid equipment to Jamaica to help in the aftermath of hurricane Dean. 

But on Wednesday, the giant grey-blue plane's delivery to Kandahar included 35,000 kilograms of equipment destined for Canadian troops. It was scheduled to depart for Canada just a few hours after landing. 

The second C-17 purchased by Canada is slated to arrive in November 2007 and two others in the spring of 2008. 

_ 

Okay, I just sexpected you to like that little "oops" in editing. The gigantic, 200-tonne bird of steel is *sexpected*   ;D to have an effect on Canadian troop confidence....please I hope it doesn't have too much of an effect!


----------



## midget-boyd91 (29 Aug 2007)

Well, who can blame them? That is one SHEXY BEAST ;D


----------



## aesop081 (29 Aug 2007)

Hunteroffortune said:
			
		

> In its giant belly, the plane can carry *77,000 tonnes of cargo,* including vehicles, and can transport up to 100 soldiers.



Hummm..........NO !!!!


----------



## Hunteroffortune (29 Aug 2007)

NO, it's not sexy, or NO it can't carry that much cargo?


----------



## aesop081 (30 Aug 2007)

Hunteroffortune said:
			
		

> NO, it's not sexy, or NO it can't carry that much cargo?



Read the portion i quoted and think a bit....

Do you honestly think it can carry *Seventy-seven Thousand TONNES * of cargo ?

 :


----------



## armyvern (30 Aug 2007)

If I was a pilot, I'd drive her!! She is somewhat hot; actually, quite sizzling.


----------



## newfin (30 Aug 2007)

77,000 tonnes would be over 150 million pounds!!  So, no - it can't carry that much weight.


----------



## Cronicbny (30 Aug 2007)

Who knew such a "small" plane could carry a WW2 Aircraft Carrier?!  :


----------



## Hunteroffortune (30 Aug 2007)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Read the portion i quoted and think a bit....
> 
> Do you honestly think it can carry *Seventy-seven Thousand TONNES * of cargo ?
> 
> :



Well, I'm just a civilian, and have only been close to a Herc once, so I really have no idea how much this plane can carry. Thanks for pointing out another error in the article, maybe someone should talk to the media about the sex-ample C-17 and straighten them out!


----------



## aesop081 (30 Aug 2007)

Hunteroffortune said:
			
		

> Well, I'm just a civilian, and have only been close to a Herc once, so I really have no idea how much this plane can carry.



For reference, a Halifax-Class frigate is 4,470 Tones.....

The article implies that the C-17 can carry 11 halifax-Class frigates


Not bad for a 200-ton airlifter


----------



## FSTO (30 Aug 2007)

Cronicbny said:
			
		

> Who knew such a "small" plane could carry a WW2 Aircraft Carrier?!  :



Thats bigger than a WWII carrier, more like the Constellation or the Kitty Hawk!


----------



## Hunteroffortune (30 Aug 2007)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> For reference, a Halifax-Class frigate is 4,470 Tones.....
> 
> The article implies that the C-17 can carry 11 halifax-Class frigates
> 
> ...



Bit hard for it to get off the tarmac I would think! Thanks for putting it into prospective, that would be one awesome plane! The media really has to learn what research is, and spell check!


----------



## Good2Golf (30 Aug 2007)

....then again, lifting 77,000 tons....it would be useful for putting up a low-earth-orbit Deathstar to keep an eye on our Northern flanks...


----------



## George Wallace (30 Aug 2007)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> ....then again, lifting 77,000 tons....it would be useful for putting up a low-earth-orbit Deathstar to keep an eye on our Northern flanks...



Are you suggesting "Spectre II" ?    ;D


----------



## 404SqnAVSTeach (30 Aug 2007)

General characteristics

    * Crew: 3: 2 pilots, 1 loadmaster
    ** Capacity:
          o 102 troops or
          o 36 litter and 54 ambulatory patients
    * Payload: 170,900 lb (77,519 kg) of cargo* distributed at max over 18 463L master pallets or a mix of palletized cargo and vehicles
    * Length: 174 ft (53 m)
    * Wingspan: 169.8 ft (51.75 m)
    * Height: 55.1 ft (16.8 m)
    * Wing area: 3,800 ft² (353 m²)
    ** Empty weight: 282,500 lb (128,100 kg)*
    ** Max takeoff weight: 585,000 lb (265,350 kg)*
    * Powerplant: 4× Pratt & Whitney F117-PW-100 turbofans, 40,440 lbf (180 kN) each
    * Fuel capacity: 35,546 US gal (134,556 L)


----------



## armyvern (30 Aug 2007)

Even given that the packaging carried is much less than the original article implies ... it's still damn sexy.  8)


----------



## 404SqnAVSTeach (30 Aug 2007)

THe Canadian flag and roundel are looking sharp.


----------



## 404SqnAVSTeach (30 Aug 2007)




----------



## armyvern (30 Aug 2007)

Are you turning this into a plane porn thread??  ;D


----------



## Hunteroffortune (30 Aug 2007)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Are you turning this into a plane porn thread??  ;D



It's just a sexample of how big those planes really are!   

I wish Edmonton still had the air show, we loved going, and my boys would love to see some of those planes up close, maybe talk to some actual pilots.


----------



## aesop081 (30 Aug 2007)

Hunteroffortune said:
			
		

> maybe talk to some actual pilots.



Why ?

All you are going to get out of them is "Look at me i'm so awesome" or words to that effect

 ;D


----------



## Hunteroffortune (31 Aug 2007)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Why ?
> 
> All you are going to get out of them is "Look at me i'm so awesome" or words to that effect
> 
> ;D



Well, last time we went to an airshow, all the military people were "awesome". It's the planes that are awesome, but the pilots who fly them probably are too.  

Last year I took my boys to Klondike Days/Capital Ex, the most fun they had was at the military pavillion. They got to pick up real guns, see some real tanks, and talk to real troops who had been to Afghanistan. After that they started asking about joining the cadets, which I have encouraged, I much prefer them being in the  cadets to them hanging around the malls.


----------



## retiredgrunt45 (31 Aug 2007)

> If I was a pilot, I'd drive her!! She is somewhat hot; actually, quite sizzling.



 You vixen you.  ;D


----------



## Brockvegas (31 Aug 2007)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Are you turning this into a plane porn thread??  ;D



C'mon Vern, some of us like the "bigger" girls. I mean really, look at those curves! How can you not love it?  ;D


----------



## Inch (31 Aug 2007)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> For reference, a Halifax-Class frigate is 4,470 Tones.....
> 
> The article implies that the C-17 can carry 11 halifax-Class frigates
> 
> ...



Not trying to pick fly shit out of pepper, but the navy website lists the CPFs as 4,770 tonnes and 77,000/4,770 is more like 16 CPFs.

Too funny though, I sent an email off to CTV yesterday noting that there was no way that a single airplane could carry 16 Halifax class patrol frigates and that their numbers were a _bit_ off. Low and behold, today the article has changed, with of course no reply to my email.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070829/c17_afghanistan_070829/20070830/


----------



## 404SqnAVSTeach (31 Aug 2007)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Are you turning this into a plane porn thread??  ;D



 ;D ;D ;D 

No, I'd post these instead


----------



## Globesmasher (1 Sep 2007)

Brockvegas said:
			
		

> C'mon Vern, some of us like the "bigger" girls. I mean really, look at those curves! How can you not love it?  ;D



This will be about the only time when I say "Short and fat is sexy".
We were thinking of putting that on the Sqn patch .................


----------



## Hunteroffortune (2 Sep 2007)

This is a great sexample of how the media distorts the truth. They are so lazy they can't even research an article. Funny how they have finally corrected their mistakes. To bad that the average Canadian doesn't see the changes, only the original article. 

Still that plane is sexy. Bet there is a line up to fly it! I loved the fact that it's first mission was to fly supplies to people hit by the hurricane. Maybe next time PM Harper goes to Afghanistan he will fly in the C-17, it would be safer than some of those old planes.


----------



## inferno (13 Sep 2007)

2 Questions:

The photo with the C17 taking off, what's with the tail number being painted over?
It's in light grey 177701 in all the other pictures, and in real life, but in that picture it's 500something or other?

Point 2. It is setup for airtoair refueling from a boom style refueler?
I was under the impression the only A2A refueling we are setup for was with a hose/reel/drogue style setup. Are we going to be using allied refueling aircraft? I bet $1.04 a L for regular looks dirt cheap compared to buying fuel from the back of a KC-10 or KC-135.


----------



## medaid (14 Sep 2007)

inferno said:
			
		

> I bet $1.04 a L for regular looks dirt cheap compared to buying fuel from the back of a KC-10 or KC-135.



"Ugh, Air Force 39D this is 701"
"701"
"AF 39D do you take cash?"
"ugh, 701 uh, negative, we'll take anything from VISA, Master Card or paypal"
"AF 39D, copy. Will be Paypaling funds. Cheers for the fuel"


----------



## Bandit1 (14 Sep 2007)

Hunteroffortune said:
			
		

> I wish Edmonton still had the air show, we loved going, and my boys would love to see some of those planes up close, maybe talk to some actual pilots.



For a chance to talk to some of the pilots and a heck of a lot of people involved in the air show world, head over to http://www.airshowbuzz.com and poke around.  You'll find videos, message boards, and a whole bunch of nice photos from air shows all over North America.

Cheers, Bandit


----------



## rz350 (14 Sep 2007)

woah! the C-17 can carry a Panamax cargo ship with a bit of room to spare? 

beautiful bird tho.


----------



## Globesmasher (16 Sep 2007)

inferno said:
			
		

> 2 Questions:
> 
> The photo with the C17 taking off, what's with the tail number being painted over?
> It's in light grey 177701 in all the other pictures, and in real life, but in that picture it's 500something or other?



Discussion and answers found here:...............
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/64555.0.html



			
				inferno said:
			
		

> Point 2. It is setup for airtoair refueling from a boom style refueler?
> I was under the impression the only A2A refueling we are setup for was with a hose/reel/drogue style setup. Are we going to be using allied refueling aircraft? I bet $1.04 a L for regular looks dirt cheap compared to buying fuel from the back of a KC-10 or KC-135.



Full discussions on Air Refuelling, among other things, found here: ...........
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/54089.0.html

Enjoy.


----------



## C1302C17 TECH (17 Sep 2007)

LOL, that is too funny, and with all new C-17's being built for ER (extended range) that would be just shy of 150,000 lbs of fuel, or if you do the math...

250,000lbs of fuel divided by 1.78 (a common number for finding fuel weight based upon a specific gravity of .8

equals... about 140,449 litres of fuel...  Feel free to correct the math as it's been about 10 weeks since I have been on the line and my mind is numb with C-17 technical data.

Cheers


----------



## inferno (17 Sep 2007)

USAF pays about $17.50 per gallon of fuel delivered in-flight... or at least that's what one report I've read stated.

$17.50x140,499... that can't be right.

~$2, 500, 000 worth of in flight fueling?


----------



## Nfld Sapper (17 Sep 2007)

inferno said:
			
		

> USAF pays about $17.50 per gallon of fuel delivered in-flight... or at least that's what one report I've read stated.
> 
> $17.50x140,499... that can't be right.
> 
> ~$2, 500, 000 worth of in flight fueling?



Yeah you wrong I think

Remember  1 gal= 4 liters  so.....

17.50 *35124.75 = $614,683.13

If my math is right.


----------



## Globesmasher (17 Sep 2007)

Typically during AR, the fuel that comes down the boom at you costs 9 times more than it costs to pump it straight out of the ground.


----------

