Talk:Boeing C-17 Globemaster III

Missing history?

So they started development in '81, signed the contract in '85, and didn't deliver an airframe until '91? What gives? I'm assuming there was some story to be told to explain a six-year build! Maury 21:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

• Some development problems and a budget cut added 3-4 years to the schedule, according to Global security's page.[1] -Fnlayson 22:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  • The global Security article is not super clear on that. I'd like to have another source that backs up that info up before adding. -Fnlayson 18:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Its true that this page looked too much like a car dealership brochure. I decided to add some historical info with a little empahsis on the "down" side of the aircraft to balance the article a little. All info in documented with US Government Documentation, so no cry-babies please Hudicourt 22:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Unimproved runways

The USAF fact sheet states all this below except for the damage part.

The C-17 is designed to operate from runways as short as 3,500 ft (1,064 m) and as narrow as 90 ft (27 m). In addition, the C-17 can operate out of unpaved, unimproved runways (although there is the increased possibility of damage to the aircraft).C-17 fact sheet, US Air Force

None of the other sources mentions that either. I think that's too obvious for them to bother mentioning. -Fnlayson 21:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Specifications

I tried to update the specs using more recent data (USAF fact sheet & Boeing backgrounder), then used the Aerospaceweb page. I'm not sure about the Empty and Zero fuel weights though. Anybody got any other recent sources? Thanks. -Fnlayson 21:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Some figures are provided in this Sept 2005 Report: http://www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/reports/2005-09-Mobility_Final.pdf It does not give the zero fuel weight by name, but gives the max payload of 164,900 lbs and the operating empty weight of 282,500 lbs. The Zero Fuel Weight in most aircraft is the Empty Weight plus the max payload (in reality, the max payload is the zero fuel weight minus the empty weight), which would give a zero fuel weight of 447,400 lbs which would leave 137,600 lbs for fuel. It burns about 18,000 lbs an hour in cruise, so that would give the C-17ER with a full payload about 7 hours fuel, no reserves. The same documents claims the C-17ER has a full payload range of 2250 NM with standard reserves and an alternate, so it checks out. Hudicourt 18:47, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• OK, thanks. The zero fuel weight (277 klb) listed was wrong then. So I hid it. And thanks for the Mobility link. -Fnlayson 21:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Over-detailed CC-177 info

Info on the paint and logo are being removed on purpose as extraneous. Please refrain from denigrating regular editors by calling this vandalism. The Canadian seciton is large enough in comparison to the rest of the article as it is, without filling it up with minor details. Forums are generally not allowed per WP:EL. Please find a verifiable souce according to WP:ATTR policies, such as a news website report, that contains the details and add that. Finally, WP:3RR limits the amout of reversions an editor can make, and users violating this can be blocked. - BillCJ 17:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• Gee, I only removed the details on the markings and paint color. A sentence worth I guess. I left the forum pages since I thought me or someone could find an article or release with the same info. Not a big deal. The plane will surely be done a few days. -Fnlayson 18:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I know what you had in mind, Jeff, had no problem with that. I was just explaining why they aren't generally allowed tou our friend. - BillCJ 18:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Really, whatever guys, I think you're being a bit overzealous on this. I am not using original works from the forum, but rather am using actual authentic photos of the aircraft as a source. Can someone clarify exactly how this would apply? The photos clearly reference the little tidbit of information I added, as the roundel and the Canadian logo are a unique part of our heritage that Canadians are quite proud of. BillCJ reminds me of a sleezy lawyer trying to get something clearly true thrown out of the article on a technicality. Can we get an official word from someone on this. Also, I take exception to the claimed near-violation of the 3RR rule. You're getting pretty close to it yourself, buddy. Snickerdo 18:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Oh, and if you're so hung up on this being a forum thing, I will save one of the photos from the forum to my own personal webspace, which to BillCJ will somehow make this photo magically more legitimate than it was when it was posted to the forum. See you all this evening. Snickerdo 18:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
      • The forum pages are still in the reference. No reason to complain about that. I'd think it was too much detail if US or Australian markings were described similarly. Encyclopedias are supposed to collect and summarize information. Canada One does look good, btw. -Fnlayson 18:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
        • It was one sentence making reference to something that is very unique to the Canadian versions of these planes, since no other country has their actual national logo on the side of the aircraft in such a promnent manner. This is noteworthy. I really, really don't want to get into it over this, but I feel very strongly that the mention of the logo and the roundel should be included. Snickerdo 18:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
          • You have a point there. An article or press release should mention that after the plane is completed and handed over. -Fnlayson 18:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
            • You don't need a press release for this. A gigantic Government of Canada logo on the side speaks for itself, as it is branding Canada as a whole rather than just the Military/Air Force like on the US, UK and Australian planes. Snickerdo 18:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

If you own the pics, go ahead and upload them, and we'll put them in the article, and people can see the logo for themselves. But if the pics aren't licensed properly, you'll find there are people out there who'll make me look like a pre-law student! The Wikipedia Foundation takes copyright violations seriously, and these people are very aggressive about enforcing that. Also, if your text had described the logo as over-sized to begin with, it might have been a bit more notable, but I still feel the desription would be superflous.

One more thing, if we kept everything that had been posted in the article about the Canadian purchase since it was first considered, the section would now be about as long as the rest of the article. If you doubt me, check the edit history of the article. Also, I have split off at least three articles on Canadian aircraft versions from their main ariticles when the legitimate content began to overwhelm the rest of the article. If the CC-177 section gets to the point where separate coverage is warranted, I'll be the first one proposing it, and will probably do most of the work. But at this point, the notable content is not there yet. Something that such an article could cover in more detail are those who are opposed to the purchase of the CC-177, as they usually are to most Canadian military purchases. And just to guess, I doubt they are very proud of that logo on what they think as a big waste of money! - BillCJ 18:49, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

You make a good point about the logo and people opposed to the purchase. Having said that, we'll just leave it as it is. As for the photos, I had no intention of posting work without permission on wikipedia. My comment was more to do with getting them off the forum, not uploading them to wikipedia. Snickerdo 19:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• Added mention of the maple leaf and roundel back a couple days ago: "Then it was rolled into the paint hangar for painting and addition of Canadian markings including national logo and the Air Command roundel." I guess they are still finishing it up in some way. -Fnlayson 16:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I just seen pictures posted on a forum showing the C-17 rolled out of the paint shop. Looks like it will be going for flight testing before the August 9 delivery. Man, I am so excited. ThePointblank 21:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia even announces at what air shows aircraft are going to appear now? The Canadian section requires a major clean up people. There are too much un-necessary details Hudicourt 12:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC).

Swedish Armed Forces

Now that Sweden has joined NSAC and is no longer going to buy its own C-17s, I think that whole section should be eliminated and the major facts integrated into the NATO section. Hudicourt 12:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• I cut that section down. But yea, it should be removed before long. Working a sentence about Sweden and its EU Nordic group would be the way to go. Not sure how to work that it exactly right now. -Fnlayson 17:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Canadian Forces section cut back

I'm going to remove the middle paragraph below and shorten and combine the other two.

The Canadian Forces Future Strategic Airlifter Project has studied alternatives since 2002, including long-term leasing arrangements. The assumption was that the military was pushing for the C-17 even though the outright purchase of even a small number was considered beyond the reach of the current defence budget. The current Conservative Government promised during the January 2006 federal election campaign to purchase three or four strategic airlifters, which was thought to be thinly veiled reference to the C-17.

Minister of National Defence Gordon O'Connor announced on June 29, 2006, that the CF would acquire four strategic lift aircraft at a cost of C$1.8 billion (US$1.6 billion). On July 5 the Government issued a notice on the MERX purchasing system that it intended to negotiate directly with Boeing for the purchase of four aircraft. This supply notice declared the government's intention to purchase the C-17 unless another supplier could demonstrate that it met the mandatory requirements prior to August 4, 2006.

On February 1, 2007 the Canadian government awarded the contract for four C-17s for delivery beginning in August 2007. Like Australia, Canada will be granted airframes originally slated for the U.S. Air Force, to accelerate delivery.

I wanted to copy it all here in case the procurement info is needed for another article. -Fnlayson 17:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Deliveries table

If you want to present the C-17 deliveries in a table, try deliveries by year. See Boeing 767 for an example. -Fnlayson 20:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• I started a table like that. -Fnlayson 21:37, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I have just removed the delivery table before user Daniel list all 158 aircraft. I think we need a consensus before adding a long list into this article. Nothing wrong with the deliveries by year table. MilborneOne 21:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Highly unlikely. The B-2's list of 21 is about as long as has been generally allowed in an aircraft article. More than that is just excessive, imo. -Fnlayson 21:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• I agree, but it does not mean that new contributors cant test the water on the talk page. MilborneOne 21:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Sure. Just wondering, where did you get the tail number for the C-17 that was hit by a SAM? -Fnlayson 22:22, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Aviation-Safety.net - Aviation Safety net information on incident to 98-0057 MilborneOne 22:28, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Thanks. Didn't expect that site to have military incidents. That page didn't show up in any internet searches I did. :( -Fnlayson 22:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

OK. --Dhpage 22:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

What is needed to improve this page?

• This page has potential to be really great, how can I help improve it? Thanks, Dhpage 04:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Check on the content in the Development section. There are may be some major events omitted. Any new info on LAPES airdrop system, runway length, etc. Info on its externally blown flaps to shorten takeoff would be a good addition the Design section. It's best to add references with the info. It is much harder finding reference for a sentence or paragraph later. Thanks. -Fnlayson 05:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Canadian Roundel

I have to apologize for not realizing to document my edits, I am very new here.

But, I was until recently a former member of the Canadian Forces and the roundel that is on the Canadian C-17 is commonly known as the RCAF roundel. The current roundel was introduced in 1965, simplifying the former roundel to match the maple leaf on the new Canadian flag. It has to my knowledge, training, and experience and in several references been referred to as the RCAF roundel, more of a tribute than anything else. This policy is in keeping with recognizing pre-unification items, such as the RCAF tartan and the RCAF March Past, as official 'issue'. Yes, the RCAF has been gone 40 years now, since 1968, but something’s do remain! ;-)

Oh and yes, most of us do agree the overzealous use of the maple leaf and 'Canada' are annoying. I commented when they first started doing it, that it was like we were advertising used cars. Thank the Liberal government for that silliness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimsim22 (talk • contribs) 12:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

• OK, I was going this the ensign image here (Image:Ensign of the Royal Canadian Air Force.svg) which is different from the Image:RCAF-Roundel.svg image. This could have been resolved much faster by adding some explanation in the edit summary box... -Fnlayson (talk) 16:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
• It is also correct (maybe less so) to call it the Canadian Forces Air Command's roundel since they adopted it and are current user of it. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:35, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
• They are the current user, but they kept the former names, as I pointed out, of the items they continued to use, such as the official march, 'The RCAF March Past' and the tartan of the air force, the RCAF Tartan. Even the official website is back to the "Air Force". The whole unification was forced on everyone, nobody wanted it, it was a huge and expensive failure. But I have seen the RCAF ensign flying at many air bases, the troops have always wanted the return of the 'old ways'. At the very least you can recognize the history of this great force. I know it may be hard to understand to someone from outside the country or even someone without a military background, but at the very least we try to continue with our remaining traditions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.21.68 (talk) 00:19, 9 February 2008 (UTC) Sorry! by jimsim22

I do note that the only source for that sentence is a photo on a forum site. If we can finde a published source that calls it the "RCAF Roundel", then fine; otherwise we should take that part out and just say something about Canadian military or air force insignia. SOry to be testy about this, but anyone can claim anything - published sources are much harder to make up. - BillCJ (talk) 04:48, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I may have not made the point clear enough sorry about that, BUT! being until recently a serving member and having spent most of my life in the Canadian Forces what do I know right? ;-) Here is the Air Force site that describes the history of the RCAF roundel: http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/site/hist/tradn_e.asp Please note the date of it's last change, 1965, hence, like the march, tartan and several other traditional items, it retains it's original title. God forbid people try to change our history any more, the former government did enough damage. Cheers! Jimsim22 (talk) 05:55, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

That website doen't call it the RCAF roundel. As the RCAF no longer exists, using the term in this context seems to be an anachronism. The Air Command's website refers to itself as the 'air force' and I've changed the article's wording to be consistent with this. --Nick Dowling (talk) 06:58, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this is just getting stupid, the site does say "RCAF was authorized to replace the inner circle with the red maple leaf" and then says "In 1965 the eleven point, stylized maple leaf of the new national flag became the centre-piece of Canada's roundel" The term RCAF is used constantly in the Forces and is a recognized tradition. You are really grasping at straws to fulfill whatever agenda you have. I especially take exception at people who read something somewhere and are instant experts. Serve in the Forces and then maybe you might have some idea of what is being discussed here. And Air Command? Who calls it that? Even back when I first started it was the air force. The nice catchy terms politicians throw around never caught on with those of us serving. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimsim22 (talk • contribs) 07:29, 9 February 2008 (UTC) Jimsim22 (talk) 07:33, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm Australian and don't have an agenda. Whatever serving members of the air force call the institution, it's been the air command since 1975 and claiming that the RCAF roundel is being painted on new aircraft is confusing. --Nick Dowling (talk) 07:37, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Good God Nick, if you don't want anything confusing stay well away from the Canadian Forces!  ;-) Seriously though the RCAF term still applies to many traditions and items, it is applied to the majority of items that were not changed during the unification in 1968. As I wrote above, the air force march, tartan and a slew of other traditions and issue items still retain the RCAF label. And for good reason, it is one of the only ways we can keep the RCAF traditions alive in the 'new' air force. I think it would be similar to referring to all the RAAF aircraft as ADF aircraft, etc. I hope maybe that makes a bit more sense to you, it is confusing, but the air force leadership has tried hard to retain at least the spirit of the RCAF, hence the more recent changes to 'Wings' instead of 'Bases' and the reintroduction of Air Force, over Air Command, not that that term was really used outside of Ottawa. Cheers, Jimsim22 (talk) 07:50, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

The Royal Australian Air Force still exists as an independent organisation and has not been renamed and restructured like the RCAF was. The ADF is the combination of the three services, so that's not an accurate comparison. --Nick Dowling (talk) 07:53, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I have just reverted you again. The reference you provided refers only to 'The Roundel', not the RCAF roundel. I believe that the three revert rule now applies and you or I will be blocked if we change this again. You need to provide an reliable reference which states that the correct name of the roundel is still the RCAF roundel - as per Wikipedia:Verifiability all claims "must be attributed to a reliable, published source", and you cannot rely only on your personal experiances. --Nick Dowling (talk) 08:01, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

• Actually, the last revert two reverts were by me, so you are in the clear Nick. Sunray (talk) 08:09, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with what Nick Dowling, BillCJ, and Fnlayson have said: "Air Force Roundel" makes the most sense in this article. A Google search shows that Air Force Roundel gets 7,420 hits and RCAF Roundel 1,230. Since there no longer is an RCAF, we have to go with usage. To what Nick has said, above, I would add that editorial decisions are made by consensus. We have a consensus that it's Air Force Roundel. Sunray (talk) 08:09, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

A consensus? So if I get together a number of serving members who know the correct terms we will the trump you? So the RCAF march past has been renamed by you as well? The RCAF Tartan is no longer because you and a couple of other decided so? So we are now basing our history on how many hits we get on google? So whom do I show the rest of my reference to? And are any of you former members? Even Canadian? Seriously where do I go from here, because this is a total joke. --Jimsim22 (talk) 08:16, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

As Nick has said, if you can produce a reliable source that says it is still properly referred to as the "RCAF Roundel," we will accept that. As to you getting some additional former members to comment, that would be fine. If they are established editors of Wikipedia (as opposed to sockpuppets or Meatpuppets) and they think that it should be "RCAF Roundel," the consensus might change. However, that is not the case right now. And, by the way, I am ex-RCAF. Sunray (talk) 08:34, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Here's the scoop that should clear this up. I did some digging and consulted an expert on air force insignia (Mr. Bill Burns in London Ont. http://www.canmilair.com) and here's what I found out. All incarnations of the current 11-point-leaf roundel , including those used in the transition period 1965-67, are known as the CAF roundel to distinguish it from the "RCAF roundel" which has a different leaf pattern (the silver maple leaf). The current roundel (with the 11-pointed leaf) was standardized in May 1967 because after 1965, there were so many versions of it. This standard (current) design (purists refer to it as the "CAF revision E" roundel) has changes made to various internal spacing and has a comparatively wider blue circle and larger leaf than the 1965-67 version used in the transition era, and is certainly a different design from the silver maple roundel (the true "RCAF" roundel). There are also subtle color differences. There may indeed be some in the CAF/Air Command who call the roundel the RCAF roundel, but this is probably because it was inherited as a 'blue circle and red leaf" design and is a traditional moniker rather than a formal one. BTW, the RCAF roundel is copyrighted by the Air Force Association of Canada. The following links have more information: http://www.canmilair.com/prints.htm and http://www.canmilair.com/products.asp?cat=77. If anyone wants further contact information for Mr. Burns, please leave a message on my talk page. -BC (talk) 17:36, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks to Brian for his work on this. Sound research makes for better editorial decisions, IMO. Sunray (talk) 19:29, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Books on C-17?

Could only find two books on Amazon which seems odd. Any clues? Royzee (talk) 10:48, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

More books are written about fighter and attack aircraft, not transports unfortunately. The 2 books listed at the bottom of the references section are good ones. Maybe out of print now though. abebooks.com seems to have more used books. Ignore government reports, since those can probably be found online for free. Another option is to look for aircraft encyclopedias. They will have less detail on a particular aircraft though. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:31, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Personal experience and notes on C-17 development

I was working in MDD since nearly the beginning of the program and have some documentation and notes on the project, as well as a personal experiences and even some parts. I know that Wiki frowns on unpublished (but verifiable) reports, but if that is the only source for information... I do have a couple of friends that worked with me and can verify what I write. SO, question is, how can I author what I know? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flightsoffancy (talk • contribs)

May be a problem as it is treated as original research and is not allowed even if it is the only source. You really need published or third party verifiable sources to back up edits. It does no harm to list any problems or additions required on this talk page and let other editors help with sources. MilborneOne (talk) 18:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Any data from solid, public sources (per WP:RS) can be added. I have a book called Globemaster III: Acquiring the C-17 by Kennedy that covers a lot of the early history back to the AMST. We may be able to use that to reference some of your info. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:01, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I was asked about what I can offer. Currently the article has one paragraph on early design, and that scant info omits a huge amount of the early deve problems, the 2 other airframes, building, where built, layoffs, etc, etc. Should I just write away and refer from Kennedy? Or read from Kennedy's work and go from their? What about my friends who worked on the program, could they be a source for verification? I know I already asked this somewhat.--Flightsoffancy (talk) 17:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Whatever is added needs to be covered by a reference. Writing something and putting the Kennedy book as a reference when it does not cover it would not be good. The only individuals that qualify as reliable sources are established experts in their fields. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, but the irony is if a person who actually worked on the design, the project manager, involved with testing or even production (and test fly) would be a much better source then a 3ed party who may not have even touched one. If I can see the Kennedy article I will use it as a guide. Yes, it needs to be corroborated/verified to be reliable. Almost a Catch-22.  :^)

WHAT if I write it here, in the discussion page, and have it go from here? --Flightsoffancy (talk) 22:52, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

• The people that worked will surely know better, but they might not remember everything or might embellish things some. ;) It would be better to work on elsewhere like user space. You can set-up a sandbox in your user space (User:Flightsoffancy/C-17 sandbox) or put one on mine (User:Fnlayson/C-17 sandbox). -Fnlayson (talk) 23:05, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In Globemaster III&redirect=no&oldid=228822876 the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

• "Qatar C-17" :
  • [http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5g7cVfHgwi2y-33rzT8MENYsZ4LKA "Boeing wins Qatar order for C-17 military aircraft"]
  • <ref>[http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2008/q3/080721a_nr.html "Boeing, Qatar Announce C-17 Globemaster III Order"], Boeing, [[21 July]] [[2008]].

DumZiBoT (talk) 15:09, 1 August 2008 (UTC)