Our company designed the Avionics Suite for the C17. I am one of those engineers, which involved well over 300 people, for several years. This airframe is one of the absolutely BEST cargo aircraft, which was ever designed. We got the job because we had previous experience for C5, and parts for the AC130. It was major major mistake to stop the continual production of this plane. Right now it is desperately needed, and the C130s cannot support the sizes and weights required for modern ground vehicles, larger cargo, number of persons carried, or on/off loading. It could have also been a Tanker, which the USAF is still unable to make properly. C5s cannot land on such unimproved fields, and have major on/off loading issues. C17s have multiple redundant systems, and can work in degraded conditions, poor weather, and in all places on this Earth, which have any kind of landing zone.

I did get to walk through a C-17 at an airshow it is a beautiful cargo jet! When I was in the 101st I got to be on a load out to Panama prior to the taking out of Noriega. We were in a C-5, we loaded 8 Hueys and 70 troops in it. I was a Huey PIC then. I got the opportunity to visit the cockpit as we were approaching the Yucatán Peninsula at FL 330. The copilot was back talking to the navigator and the Captain let me sit in the right seat. We got a clearance to descend to 310 and the Captain reached over and set 310 and pressed a button and down we went. It gave me the desire and after 10 years of Huey flying, U-8F, and C-12D I lucked out and got hired by AAL and spent 17 years flying for them, even 18 months flying the 777, I was a Captain flying the 72 an 73-8.

I flew the C-17 right out of UPT from 1999-2005 and had every qual, with 3500 hours in type. It remains the most significant airplane in my flying history and the foundation for everything I’ve done since then. There is nothing like it.

My favorite plane to jump out of! Compared to the C130 these are luxurious, even with a few Humvees strapped down in the middle. Love the history!

Excellent video, Captain Rogers! I am thankful to live in an MTR, so i get to watch the C-17 practice terrain following several times per week. It's always the highlight of my day! I've uploaded several videos of this action to my channel. Many thanks to Charlotte and Pittsburgh ANG. And thank you again Captain!

I used to see C-17 daily as an AGE mechanic at Ramstein AB. My flight supported the transient AMC aircraft and we saw plenty of C-17 and C-5 and KC-135 and also the tail end of the C-141 life. C-17 were east because they usually only needed a generator and a B-4 stand. I had a pretty efficient system when I was on flight line duty to keep up with demand for incoming and departing aircraft and how long it took to fuel up an empty generator. I had a good system and found out the hard way that the crew chiefs knew by voice on the radio and whenever I relived another less efficient driver they’d say over the radio “this guy knows what he’s doing get your stuff now”.

I enjoyed your insights about the flying characteristics of the C-17. That jet always impressed me with its maneuverability for such a big aircraft. I can remember flying between WRI and CHS on the way to Biggs AAF for a WIC. On the way to Charleston they were practicing the syllabus and initially flew out over Atlantic City and opened up the cargo door while the rest of the formation were in trail flying SKE. Afterward we turned to the south and flew pretty low somewhere along the Appalachian Mountain chain for a spell. During this segment I remember getting either driven into or coming out of my seat while I was lying down. After a little bit I decided to investigate and take a peek out of the porthole window next to the Loadmaster's station and had to look up to see the ridge. But as for maintenance, that jet it wasn't a fan favorite or at least back in my day. I'm sure they worked a lot of the bugs out by now. The engines were somewhat reliable but nowhere as reliable as the GE's that I had worked on previously (except for the TF39). Since the C-17 had both a fan and core reverser. The fan reverser wasn't a big problem or at least if it had the neat nacelle, but the core reverser was always a problem. You could rig it and then shake the hell out of it and recheck and it would be out of rig again. Most of the core reverser issues back then was during engine running offloading/onloading in the desert. The crews would deploy the TR's and offload PAX and cargo which could be for quite some time. In the process the core reverser would become heat soaked and when when stowed, the translating sleeve of the core would get stuck once the dagmar cooled. Interestingly, even though the reversers on the C-17 were hydraulic, there wasn't enough force to unseat the core reverser from under the dagmar under this condition. Which would cause us to have to lock out the TR which was a chore all in itself mainly because the TR control valve was in the pylon of affected engine. I thought that it was interesting that the flight controls had a Mech backup but the engines were purely fly by wire. And of course since it was a Pratt, EPR was the thrust setting parameter. On too many occasions it would revert to N1 mode. And God forbid if you had to change a wiring harness (W1 or W2?) it was a pain to change because you had to pass the new harness through one of the fan exit vane struts and they used Adel clamps unlike GE which runs theirs through the bifurcation and used clips. Another Pratt quirk was the oil migration issues. Even though it had a check valve mechanism, we would get oil consumption write ups. There was a procedure of running the engine up to 1.18 for a period of time then shut the engine down and pull a drain plug from the accessory gearbox and if there was an inch or less of oil it was good to go. But on too many occasions you would get a full bucket of oil or more out of the gearbox. I believe that Pratt fixed this issue too, but the gearbox scavenge pump was failing and not pumping oil back to the tank and thus accounting for the missing oil. To add insult to injury the gearbox scavenge pump wasn't splined into the gearbox but direct geared. As far as the APU is concerned we had problems with exhaust leaks and the inlet door actuators. The exhaust leaks were mainly caused by backpressure on the APU from what I was told by Boeing. The heat buildup within the compartment would cause wiring degradation issues over time. Not certain how true this is but I remember being told that the reason for this was because the APU was designed by the manufacturer to be in the tail but because of weight issues it had to be relocated to the right pod. I also heard that by enlarging the right pod to house the APU this caused the jet to fly differently and MD had to program the fly by wire computers to compensate so the jet would fly straight again. Again not sure how true this is but sounds plausible. The APU implosion issue was resolved before I left. For some reason the APU inlet door would close uncommand while the APU was running and cause the plenum to implode thus trashing the APU. I believe that they were looking at a fault clutch on the door actuator as being the bad actor, but its been since 2011 since I worked on the jet. A new actuator was the solution to that problem from what I recall.

Just started my pilot career and you make me wanna be a test pilot

i'm neither a pilot nor a military guy but simply a tech enthusiast who knew this plane is special. love your casual way of talking about your experiences. thanks ron!

MD-17, very good for those Ryan Air pilots known less for landing, more for "dropping" in. Ron, the dirt strip at Edwards was known as Graham Ranch. We filmed YC-14/YC-15 "getting down and dirty" at Graham Ranch in '77...

C-17 Loadmaster here! Really love watching all of your videos and didn't know you got to fly the Moose. A few notes for you, most APU's can't start two engines at once anymore and sometimes it can't even start one. The desert has really been hard on the APU's (especially seen during the Afghanistan withdrawal). Lots of times we use the bleed air from #1 to do a reduced start after we start it off the APU. Great video.

I used to be a C-17 hydraulic systems mechanic in the Air Force. I loved working on these.

Great video Ron. Your breadth of experience is remarkable. C-17 is quite the machine. Thank you for sharing. 🫡🇺🇸

Ron, that’s you standing in front of C-17 BALLS 8!

High school buddy of mine did a lot of C-130 tine including the " LAPS " thing where they low level drop stuff out the back , lots of 141 time and then transitioned to the C -17 which he always mentioned was a very impressive aircraft. Looking forward to watching this in a few min

Very interesting

You are so lucky! I am glad you got to have this experience. Thanks for sharing it.

Lots of C-17s here in Anchorage, and of course, the C-17 demo, at the air show. Amazing aircraft!

Thanks for the very educational video and explaining the characteristics of the C-17. That’s the only plane I haven’t jumped out of as a parachutist. These aircraft are amazing. Hopefully I can catch a space A flight on one in the future.

Fascinating video, it's a beautiful big plane

They would always come up from Charleston, S.C. to shoot approaches in Wilmington, N.C. when I was in school. My apartment was aligned for RWY 35 (when the wind was out of the north), and sometimes the approaches would wake me up early in the morning., I would go out in the parking lot and watch it go around on touch and goes. Interesting video, Ron.

Very interesting discussion. You had a very diverse career. Thanks for sharing

The An-124 WAS a Soviet aircraft, but is now a Ukrainian type. There seem to be eight operated by non-Russian civil operators - seven by Antonov Airlines and one by Maximus Air Cargo

Nice article Ron!

excellent !

3:31 The Ukrainian (Soviet) An-124 Ruslan does that job. A few years ago, a B-777 had to land in Iqaluit with a dead engine. An An-124 brought in a replacement engine.

For the first time in my live i think ' This one is just one size to big for me' Verry interesting Ron, beatifull machine but indeed not for the average Joe. btw for $175000, I'll order one... guess you ment $175000000 😂

Excellent Ron thanks

At 30:40 ...$175,000? I'd have bought one at that price!

On the 124 point, interestingly when Antonov airlines was dissolved Turkey got their remaining fleet on long term loan for like pennies.

the center and outboard main gear wheels touch down at the same time, the inboard wheel touches down depending on weight

Hi Ron! Great and insightful video, do you have any experience flying the C130J?

Ron, this is great, but there are other important aviation safety things to talk about. Try DIPE Design Induced Pilot Error. Lots out on that now including NASA. You might even find that interesting. I am a big fan, I could be an even bigger fan. Planes should be even easier to fly.

A slight correction - the AN'124 was built in Ukraine, but its NATO reporting name is 'Russian'. At the outbreak of War, the Ukrainians evacuated their 7 aircraft to Germany (I think) The remainder were in Russian service and are grounded as far as I know.

Oh….”bucking motion” 😂

32:00 Wasn't the F15 designed with airspeed tape in the HUD similarly showing 'slower speed when you pull the nose up, and faster when you pitch down' (which seems sensible to me; but then I am probably a boring cockpit-skywards kind of guy at heart).

@30:30 - Hi Ron ! $175,000 each ? That still seems low for the mid to late 80’s to mid 1990’s. From what I can gather from original DoD, Boeing, and Congressional estimates, it appears that it’s $175,000,000 each or thereabouts in that time frame. I’m definitely not trying to step on your toes, just clarifying.

Great video today Ron. I learned a lot about a great aircraft. BTW, do you have we anything on the C5 Galaxy?

Qatar is flying at least one in Qatar Airways livery - but it's operated by the Emir's Air Force ... That's as close to civilian operations the C-17 got

So on the C-17 there’s a between the legs hybrid type joystick (Boeing) but on the 7XX series (Boeing l) it’s still the conventional between the legs type ?

I’ve always wondered why jets don’t set a moderate amount of thrust for approach and use spoilers to precisely keep the glide path.

I'm visualizing a C-17 in Hawaiian Airlines air cargo livery that never existed.

How did you like the wiggly stick being a high in the middle like that?

Antonov is Ukranian, not Russian. It looks like Antonov Airlines got most of its aircraft out of Ukraine (shame about the AN-225) and is still operating.

Come for the digressions, stay for the comments section 🙂

The Antonov 124 is from Ukraine so chances may be better than you think👍

The AN-124 is a Ukrainian made aircraft!

Does a brand new aircraft smell like a brand new car ? Seriously…just curious !

A decent rate of 24000 ft per minute is 400 ft a second! Awesome! Is that zero g or negative g for those on board?

i think they put the nose of the DC 10 on the C-

Lockheed had shopped the C-130 as a civilian hauler... I think Delta had looked at it once upon a time. The Antonov company is actually located in the Ukraine. The Russians bombed the Antonov plant early in the war and destroyed the AN-225 "Mriya" transport..."The Largest Aircraft in the World." I know there is at least one AN-124 flying in North America; last month I looked up and was startled to see one flying over my house on approach to Harrisburg Int'l Airport (KMDT). We often get to see heavies...767, 747 (both the VC-25 "Air Force One" and the E-4), A-300, and a variety of USAF types: C-130, C-17, C-5, KC-135, KC-10...so it's not unusual to see a really big airplane on approach, but the Antonov is...REALLY BIG.

antonov 124 is in ukrainian hands.

Antonov is Ukrainian.