Talk:Boeing C-17 Globemaster III/Archive 3

Obama budget cut
It should probably be mentioned that cutting funding for this aircraft is a significant part of president Obama's proposed defense budget cuts in 2011? Walkersam (talk) 23:00, 6 May 2011 (UTC)


 * No, that's not a new issue for the C-17. The Air Force has not requested more C-17s in the last few years. Congress threw in funding up to a year or two ago. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:07, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It always struck me as odd that Congress was assigning money and paying for aircraft the Air Force didn't ask for. I guess Obama didn't see the point either. Kyteto (talk) 11:31, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Congress funded 17 more up to 223 in 2009 and that's been it. Though a House committee tried to add an order for 1 C-17 in the FY2011 funding bill.  Seems like some token gesture there with only one involved. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:56, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Photo caption for Infobox
It used to say "The first C-17 flying a test flight in 2007". This seemed obviously wrong, since it was flying in the early 1990s, so I changed it.

It was changed back to say that it is "The first C-17 T-1 reserved for development, flying a test sortie in 2007." OK, the T-1 is rarely mentioned in the article. Is this a new plane? Something that's been developed? Is this caption meant to imply that it is the first C-17 EVER BUILT, flying a test sortie (one of many over its 15+ years of service) in 2007?

This caption is just poorly worded and quite misleading! Let's clarify this. Cheers. Junius52 (talk) 19:06, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The T-1 was the prototype, read on in the article: The maiden flight of the C-17 took place on 15 September 1991 from the McDonnell Douglas's plant in Long Beach, California, about a year behind schedule. The first aircraft (T-1) and five more production models (P1-P5) participated in extensive flight testing and evaluation at Edwards Air Force Base. Two complete airframes were built for static and repeated load testing. The T-1 was retained for further development work on the C-17 series. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:12, 6 February 2012 (UTC).


 * Maybe this is rare for the prototype to be in use 15+ years later, it is not impossible. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:11, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It's quite frequent for the prototype aircraft to be retained for testing and development duties for many decades after their primary purpose for being, proving the aircraft type, has already been satisfied. For instance, instead of modifying a production airframe that could have been sold to test a new avionics system, or additional fuel tank, or a proposed new production-standard, manufacturers often dash back to the original prototypes, as their value has already been written off - its cheaper to drag out a frame that's have never sold due to its non-standard arrangement for testing purposes than to produce one from scratch. The Avro Vulcan was famous for this, the initial prototypes ending up in service testing new engines and avionics for Rolls-Royce, the Ministry of Defense, the British Aircraft Corperation ect; so was the Boeing 747-100, although thoroughly obsolete, I believe one or two are still used as a platform for testing new engines, even for aircraft like the brand-new Boeing 787. Prototype AgustaWestland AW101s were kept on, modified to represent other potential models for sale or even sent out as in-service demonstrators to win sales and save the building of new prototypes at added cost. There's absolutely nothing strange about the initial prototype of an aircraft still conducting test flights decades later. The prototype Boeing 367-80, even though thousands of production 707s based on the 367 then existed, became a test platform for the Boeing 727, and went on to be used for more experiments before retiring nearly 20 years later. One of the prototype Airbus A380s is now being rebuilt, although the plane doesn't meet production specifications, as a one-off VIP aircraft for a customer prepared to buy a one-of-a-kind aircraft. And considering the Airforce is still bolting new tech onto their C-17s and trying out some varieties and airframe tweaks before it is too late to order a final batch with said modifications, the need for a prototype C-17 is hardly gone. There's still customers seeking development, so an aircraft being in the skies occasionally to try out those new addons isn't unusual, it's simply cheaper that banging out a whole new airframe build to spec every time somebody (read as: a customer) has a request for/interest in a design alteration. Kyteto (talk) 20:41, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, I hope I'm not being too much of a pedant, but this caption still jumps out as hard to understand until one has read the whole article. Pictures tend to draw the eye before one reads the article to get context. So, instead of saying "The first C-17 (T-1) reserved for development, flying a test sortie in 2007." Can we write The first ever C-17 (the T-1), flying a test sortie in 2007. Though built in 1991, it was reserved for continuing development. Junius52 (talk) 07:14, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

See revision, stated as a sentence. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:21, 9 February 2012 (UTC).

Hungary
Why is Hungary marked as an operator?--88.153.183.57 (talk) 18:31, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Hungary is not listed in the Operators section. So you must mean the map.  The Strategic Airlift Capability's Heavy Airlift Wing is based in Hungary. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:40, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

First C-17 Disposition
This link has information which could be added into the article C-17 to make final landing at National Museum of the U.S. Air Force. &mdash; MrDolomite &bull; Talk 11:52, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Additional pictures
Hi there, here are two pictures I've uploaded of the C-17. If you feel they can be useful in the article, go for it. The one showing its landing gear may show slightly more detail than the current one, but is up to you regulars to decide. Cheers! -- WingtipvorteX  PTT   ∅  18:21, 19 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The 2nd one might could be used somewhere. This article has a lot of images already.  The C-17 is probably too distant in the 1st image. Maybe tag the images to move them to Commons. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:27, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

NYANG 105th Airlift Wing not mentioned
We have a rampful of C-17s here at Stewart International Airport (SWF) that are the aircraft of the NYANG 105th Airlift Wing, which formerly operated C-5s. There's no mention of them in the article. (My sources? My eyeballs.  I was aboard one of them yesterday.)173.62.108.108 (talk) 23:13, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Is a separate article for service in the Indian Air Force
needed? The IAF would have 10 planes, possibly 6 more. That would mean a lot of deployments. If a separate article is created, info in this article can also be trimmed. Anir1uph &#124; talk &#124; contrib 17:10, 10 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I see you reverted my removal, frankly most of it is not notable for an overview article on the aircraft. Not sure a seperate article they are transport aircraft doing what they are designed to do - this is not notable here or anywhere else - transport designed to move stuff moves stuff, transport aircraft designed to carry troops carries troops, propose that bloat I removed is removed again. MilborneOne (talk) 17:54, 10 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I added a lot of that info seeing that others users of the aircraft has similar info in their sections. By your definition, the sections describing other users are quite bloated too. Also, India does not usually deploy its military overseas, and the IAF foreign deployments are extremely less, and the deployment of the C-17s is seen by cited references as a result of expanding Indian strategic interests. This, IMO is very important to mention and elaborate. Also, I proposed creating a new article because Boeing C-17 Globemaster III in Australian service exists. Is there a reason to not have similar articles for other users? Anir1uph &#124; talk &#124; contrib 21:34, 10 September 2013 (UTC)


 * The IAF section should be expanded only with solid, notable content, not event news-type coverage. Then when it gets too large a separate article can be split off.  That's my take on WP:Summary style and WP:Splitting anyway.  The IAF article should cover some of this too in a summary form. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:10, 10 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I think the foreign deployments and increased strategic airlift are notable. The first operational use of the plane by the IAF is also of interest. Two of the three places mentioned by name are airbases in extremely high altitude - higher than those operated by other users (see this), the third place is on an island which is ~2500 km from the Indian mainland, hence i think they are notable. I have not mentioned deployment to all the Indian air bases, only 3 notable ones. I included the deliveries of successive IAF aircraft after going through the sections of other users which mention the same. Also, it is difficult to get high quality analysis on every Indian military issue - there are not as many Indian think tanks, the number of books published on defence matters are few, and C-17s are a recent induction. I generally rely on high quality/reliable news sources like The Hindu, The Times of India and the Indian Express, but I do try to replace them with journals and books. Thanks :) Anir1uph &#124; talk &#124; contrib 22:47, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Capacity
The passenger capacity reads: Capacity: 102 paratroopers 158 troops with palletized and sidewall seats or 53 troops with sidewall seats (allows 13 cargo pallets) only or 36 litter and 54 ambulatory patients or Cargo, such as an M1 Abrams tank,[192] three Strykers, or six M1117 Armored Security Vehicles

-102 paratroopers is correct. 54 permanent sidewall seats plus 48 temporary centerline seats normally stored on the cargo door. -I'm not sure where 158 troops with palletized seating comes from. The references cited list different numbers. However, there are 54 permanent sidewall seats, and up to 9 15-seat pallets can be used, for a max of 189 seats available. -54 seats are available for patients along with the aeromedical personnel.

Additional operational restrictions apply which can sometimes further limit those max numbers, but those are military regulations and not aircraft capabilities. Orion27 27 (talk) 08:22, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

In Fiction and Popular Culture

 * In Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell: Blacklist a C-17 codenamed "Paladin" serves as the mobile base of operations for Sam Fisher and his Fourth Echelon team. The modified plane features; a large 'situation room' operations/command centre, armoury and workshop, infirmary module, holding cells, and cargo bay holding a helicopter.
 * Marvel's Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. features a heavily modified C-17. The "Bus" (formally known as the CXD 23 Airborne Mobile Command Station, officially designated as "S.H.I.E.L.D. 6-1-6".) is a flying command center for Agent Phil Coulson and his team. Adaptations include an additional pair of engines and half-length wings located at the tail section of the fuselage below the elevated tail section, the six engines are able to pivot up on each wing allowing them to be angled at the ground, giving the Bus Vertical Take-Off and Landing (VTOL) capabilities. Interior modifications include a passenger area, interrogation room, forensics and research lab, and a small cargo area at the rear of the plane where the team's SUV is stored along with Coulson's personal car, Lola.


 * Wasn't sure whether this should be in the main article or not so put it here instead. Mike (talk) 23:34, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Non-notable landing at wrong airport
I removed the recent addition of a non-notable landing from both the design and accidents sections. The removal has been reverted by the originator but as the addition has been challenged they really need to gain a consensus to add the text. Just to note that an aircraft landing within its normall limits is not a demonstration of capability, it is what it is designed to do like everything else the aircraft does. It is clearly not an accident nor an incident of any note, no injuries no damage no nothing. I will remove it again unless User:Flightsoffancy gains a consensus to add it, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 21:45, 1 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The case for inclusion is a well documented, by way of news reports and video footage, case of the C-17 landing on an airfield (3,580ft x 100ft) at almost the minimum operating limit of the air lifter (3,500ft x 90 ft). This provides an excellent example of its performance, very well documented by video of landing (cell phone) and take off (news media).  I once read a report (cannot find now because any search with "small airfield" puts this incident in every result!) that counters Boeing/McDD claim about the C-17's ability saying most fields could not stand the weight of a C-17.  Furthermore, it is very unlikely any air force would dare allow such an expensive aircraft land on a field with very little margin for error.  As such, an event like this would be very unusual, let alone rare. Cheers! --Flightsoffancy (talk) 22:12, 1 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The news coverage is largely just local Tampa Bay sources according to google searches such as (this one). The major aviation media outlets, like Aviation Week and Flight International have not covered this.  That's not widespread news coverage, imo. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:27, 1 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Aviation Week is not a kind of publisher to deal with incidents and accidents, but agree Flight Global would. Flightsoffancy (talk) 23:08, 1 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I guess so. Those were just 2 examples.  I can not find any reportes on this on the CNN, BBC, Defense News, and Defense Daily sites as well.  The 3,500 ft landing distance is for wet conditions probably with max payload, i.e. extreme conditions.  -Fnlayson (talk) 08:41, 2 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Revisiting this incident, found a new article about this, and here, will look for more. -Flightsoffancy (talk) 04:07, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

An IPer readded this 'incident' last night. I tagged it as being minor. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:16, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Boeing C-17 Globemaster III. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120218215956/http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/EquipmentAndLogistics/BrownePurchaseOfExtraC17WillsignificantlyBoostUkMilitaryOperations.htm to http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/EquipmentAndLogistics/BrownePurchaseOfExtraC17WillsignificantlyBoostUkMilitaryOperations.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 20:45, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Production ended 3 planes early
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/04/07/us-boeing-c-idUSBREA361RO20140407 Boeing has already ended production, cutting it off three planes short and several months sooner than originally announced. All the production tooling is up for auction on bidopia.com If you have a large number of millions of dollars you could buy it all and make your own Globemasters. Bizzybody (talk) 02:54, 14 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Actually, there was just a news story about the final C-17. It's November and the article currently says May. There was a time when I would have tried to correct it, but now my regard for Wikipedia is too low to do more than gloat a bit over another error. I'd offer a constructive suggestion, but I've also been convinced Wikipedia is a closed club and I have less than no interest in joining. Why did I even check Wikipedia? Oh yeah, the google still thinks Wikipedia has credibility. Oh, and by the way, the specific information I was actually looking for is NOT included anywhere in the article. Shanen (talk) 00:45, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Boeing **was never** (formerly McDonnell Douglas)
The first sentence of this article appears as if Boeing was formerly McDonnell Douglas. Of course it was not and that is not the intention of the original author since it is noted in the body of the article that Boeing merged with McDonnell Douglas.

Original text: The Boeing (formerly McDonnell Douglas) C-17 Globemaster III is a large(...)

New text: Boeing's (formerly McDonnell Douglas') C-17 Globemaster III is a large(...)

I believe this is the simplest fix. This wording indicates that the plane is the production of Boeing but it was produced by McDonnell Douglas originally. Any other wording would do fine as long as there is not the implication that Boeing was formerly McDonnell Douglas. W1 m2 (talk) 04:28, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Well I see that my input was snubbed within moments.

Look, I am just an average Joe but I can tell you that this article implies that Boeing was formerly McDonnell Douglas. If that is the message you want to convey, fine. W1 m2 (talk) 04:55, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * You provided no edit summary to explain the change. The text just means the "Boeing C-17 Globemaster III" was formerly named "McDonnell Douglas C-17 Globemaster III".  The article states the work done by McDonnell Douglas.  This should not be a big deal. Update: I moved the MD part to the next sentence, so no 'formerly' left now. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:12, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Douglas went bankrupt sometime in the late 1950s. Boeing bought them out, but kept them as a separate company. The B727 commenced production Long Beach facility. Last DC-3 made was 1966. Douglas sold to McDonnell circa 1980, and the DC-9 became the MD-11. DC-10 became the MD-10. Boeing has always been an independent company.220.244.78.63 (talk) 04:11, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * This person has no clue what they are talking about, Douglas was never part of Boeing, they merged with McDonnell Corporation in 1967; production on the DC-3 ended in 1950. DC-10 was redesignated MD-11, the DC-9 was redesignated the 717 after Boeing took over production. Please don't post if you don't have your facts straight.Bob80q (talk) 02:08, 13 June 2016 (UTC)


 * This relates to the C-17 being a former MD product nothing to do with the independence of Boeing. MilborneOne (talk) 10:11, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Improper Reversions
Editor BilCat has repeatedly reverted properly referenced and formatted posts on operators made by myself and others, even after agreeing that this was appropriate on other articles. He is either abusing his authority, playing games or there is some other explanation; his talk page states that he is "having health issues" so perhaps he is not in proper frame of mind at present. He has been reported to administrators for his behavior, request that he be removed from editing this or any other article on aircraft and that someone else be assigned.Bob80q (talk) 21:16, 27 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Where exactly did I agree to this non-conforming style? As far as others agreeing with you, several editors have reverted several times since your latest campaign began on this page. As to "some else be assigned", you've been on Wikipedia long enough that you ought to know by know that WP doesn't work that way. - BilCat (talk) 09:12, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Boeing C-17 Globemaster III. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.raaf.gov.au/aircraft/globemaster.htm
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5msbFoFWF?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.boeing.com%2Fhistory%2Fmdc%2Fc-17.htm to http://www.boeing.com/history/mdc/c-17.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:29, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Boeing C-17 Globemaster III. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081003005611/http://www.saffm.hq.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-080204-081.pdf to http://www.saffm.hq.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-080204-081.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121116045517/http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123321609 to http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123321609
 * Added tag to http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_6712/is_24_203/ai_n28736153/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100802044638/http://www.adn.com/2010/07/29/1387215/fatal-c-17-crash-also-damaged.html to http://www.adn.com/2010/07/29/1387215/fatal-c-17-crash-also-damaged.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.boeing.com/history/mdc/c-17.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:21, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Boeing C-17 Globemaster III. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130214201134/http://www.105aw.ang.af.mil/history/index.asp to http://www.105aw.ang.af.mil/history/index.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120321033447/http://www.minister.defence.gov.au/2012/03/19/minister-for-defence-and-minister-for-defence-materiel-joint-media-release-purchase-of-additional-c17/ to http://www.minister.defence.gov.au/2012/03/19/minister-for-defence-and-minister-for-defence-materiel-joint-media-release-purchase-of-additional-c17/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160813024634/http://www.defence.govt.nz/reports-publications/consideration-of-c17-capability.html to http://www.defence.govt.nz/reports-publications/consideration-of-c17-capability.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060518063754/http://www.defence.gov.au/news/raafnews/editions/4804/topstories/story02.htm to http://www.defence.gov.au/news/raafnews/editions/4804/topstories/story02.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080528224541/http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/newsroom/view_news_e.asp?id=2389 to http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/newsroom/view_news_e.asp?id=2389

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:10, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Content Suggestion
Under Accidents and notable incidents, I'd like to suggest the inclusion of an incident July 20, 2012, when a C-17 headed to MacDill AFB, inadvertently landed at Peter O. Knight Airport, where the longest runway is 95 feet short of the 3,500 foot minimum specified for the C-17. There are multiple new references, and I'll include a few below.

http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/air-force-c-17-globemaster-iii-makes-surprise-landing-at-peter-o-knight/1241349 http://www.tampabay.com/news/military/macdill/air-force-blames-pilot-fatigue-for-c-17-landing-4-miles-from-macdill/1272014

This incident is mentioned on the Wikipedia page for Peter O. Knight airport, here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_O._Knight_Airport — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.95.140.124 (talk) 04:55, 24 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Its not particularly noteworthy for the C-17. MilborneOne (talk) 16:18, 24 June 2018 (UTC)