As much as I love seeing the Blue Angels or Thunderbirds at an air show, I always get a kick out the C17 displays. Between the ridiculously short takeoffs and landings, the plane dipping it’s nose to bow at the audience after landing, and the engine tornados, they easily win the hearts of the audience.
I have been a jet engine tech for over 45+ years and all jet engines will cause this phenomenon under certain conditions if their intakes are close enough to the ground. Evan Navy aircraft on the catapult will produce this effect when they inhale the catapult's steam venting out. The C-17 is a tough little plane, a modern C-47 for sure ! They should be around awhile.
Virtually overlooked on the C17, is the "blown flaps" feature. The flaps have portions of a flap directly behind the engine. It's too hot for aluminum, so those portions are made of titanium. Most aircraft do not have flaps directly behind the engines. This adds immensely to the lift produced at very low air speeds. This allows very high angle of descent, while maintaining a low rate of descent. This combination allows a very short roll out on landing, & very short roll out on take off. Very few aircraft have put together this capability. The idea of blown flaps has been around a long time, but this aircraft came along just when materials technology made it practical. The prototype demonstrator had "double blown flaps". Not just one series of flaps, but when deployed, two sets of flaps, like louvres in a window shade. I asked if the change from double blown to single blown would lengthen landing & takeoff distance. The answer was "yes, but it would still meet specs". Double blown is heavier, more expensive, more complex, & requires more maintenance. I think they made the right choice.
@@johnwilliams1091 From what I remember about aerodynamics, "blown" flaps means not having your engines blow against the flaps, but using bleed air from the engines (or having an own compressor) tthat iis blown out over the surface of the wings and the flaps in direction of the airflow to help it maintaining a smooth, laminar airflow, orver a higher angle of attack/larger flap angles, creating more lift at lower speeds (here: lower landing speed/shorter landing and takeoff runs) Without that, the airflow delaminates earlier and becomes turbulent causing a massive increase in drag and loss of lift. That would explain the ridiculous climb angles you can sometimes see on videos.
Especially the Lookeed F-104 Starfighter needed such Boundary Layer Control, or his stubby 21 foot wings would never have been enough for reasonable landing speeds. Boundary layer: The layer of air over a wing/any surface where the the air transitions from a standstill (relative to the surface) to the full speed of the airflow. That can happen over a distance of a few tenths of a millimeter til several meter, the faster the speed, the less the thickness, the bigger the surface, the thicker the boundary layer. I learned that at very low eind speeds the bountary layer over water can be up to 10 meters (30 feet) thick. That means the mast of a moving sailing ship pokes up through a massive change in wind direction. On the ground, you have no wind, the only wind you have is from your own movement and so directly from ahead. The higher you go, the more true wind combines with that induced wind, For sailing, the real wind has to come about 30 degrees from the side over 90 degrees to 45 degrees from the back, or even directly from behind. So you get an extreme change of apparent wind direction, from directly ahead to the true wind. You want the optimum angle of attack for the sail (which is aerodynamically more or less a wing set vertical) for maximum lift and minimal drag, so you trim it with a lot of twist, practically in centerline with the boat at the bottom, and let out far at the top. Sorry for that deviation, but I LOOOOVE the universality of physics. That once you understand the principle, you can apply it in all kinds of situation.
Therefore my car will not get a cool spoiler - unless someone can prove to me that it is optimized to really create no additional or even less drag. Race cars have ample power and need pressure on the tires to avoid wheelspin, and ground pressure at low speeds to not slip in curves. To produce lots of downforce for the curves, the wings are massive, but that means enormous drag on the straights at high speed, so you must compromise. Sacrifice top speed to be fast in corners. But as "normal" driver, do I really need that? At zero speed, the lack of wing speed means the spoiler/wing has no effect. In the city, you don't need it, too many dangers around. On country roads, OK. And in the US your speed is 55 mph anyhow, so who cares about losing top speed. But here in Germany, where we still have about 8,000 kms (5000 miles) of unlimited autobahn, reducing my top speed would be stupid. It's an old car, so I am careful not to overdo it, but I have pushed it some times up to 210 kph/130 mph, and it is fun when due to the low drag you are able to make that with 10 liter/100 km / 24 mpg. which is about the average mileage I get out of the 28 year-old car in mixed traffic anyhow.
@@justing42 I can’t believe such a stupid idea ever came to be. Most useless thing the military has ever produced. Well maybe not that extreme but it’s close.
I'm retired U.S. Navy, but I can testify that if the USAF didn't have the C-130, C-17 and C-5, we'd be waaay behind! It is not only powerful but not a bad looking aircraft at that!
Any jet engine can create a mini-tornado. I worked C-141B & C, C-5A, B & C, C-130E & H, KC-135A, Q & R, KC-10A, C-17A and F-16C & D block aircraft and numberous civilian aircraft. In the presence of moisture, especially in early morning dew or fog, all of these aircraft engines created min-tornados. Even C-130 turbo-prop engines can create tornados under certain conditions...
I was on active duty Army back in early 90s at Fort Lewis, WA. We were doing a PT run around the airfield and saw this new plane doing "touch and go" runs. I was use to seeing C-5, C-141, KC-135, and C-130s and had no clue what cargo plane that was until many years later.
@@danthepaninjapancq Don't know? It was just circling doing touch and go on the Army airfield. It didn't have any markings other than the normal gray paint job.
Umm no PW lost the contract to RR engines thank you. America isn’t as great as you Americans think! It’s not even in the top 5 greatest countries FACT.
The c-141 starlifter was the workhorse that carried us to war in Vietnam. I know you want to tie the III to the II, but the c-130 was more prevalent during this era also.
Excellent machine being built and maintained. Special air lift units to deliver supplies and soldiers behind enemies lines in matter of hours when time has come. They proved there mettle before and years to come.
You should see 4 B-1B F101's at full AB on a rainy day. Palmdale Ca engine run...I think it was around 1995. 4 of the biggest rain tornado's I've ever seen.
I am an Air Force vet 3May68--22Dec63, 42251, and worked on C-47's to the C-5...no C-17's during that span. But Old Shakey was a real adventure. I had to get inside the wings many times. Up in the tail a couple. Both A & C models. I even saw the John Wayne movie based on the career of Red Adair, the dude who specialized in putting out oil rig fires...he had his own personal Shakey! You guys make some awesome videos!!!
These engines might have some power but the C17 cruises slower than most commercial airliners. Love the reverse on this airplane ✈️ C17s are amazing aircraft
True, but the reason why it cruises more slowly has more to do with airframe design than it does the engines. Those F117 engines put out around 40K of thrust each. Added together, that's 160K. That's more thrust than the KC-135's F108 engines put out, but the KC-135 is lighter, has a more "sleek" aerodynamic design and cruises at around M0.84 vs the C-17's M0.77.
Not to say that stronger engines are necessary to produce those visible vortices though. I started my USAF career as a crew chief on EC-130 aircraft. I did numerous maintenance engine runs on those birds in which vortices (tornados) going between the intakes and the ground were visible. They're like rainbows. They can show up on any jet powered engine, but they are easiest to see when weather conditions are right for it.
The C-17 was not the successor to the C-124; there were several aircraft in between: the C-141, C-130, C-5, & C-133. The C-17 compliments the C-5 & C-130 aircraft, providing airlift capability greater than the C-130, but less than the C-5.
Bin überwältigt von diesen Flugzeug Typ der USA Air Force..habe heute Mittag ein Bericht über flugzeugträger gesehen es war faszinierend mit den Flugzeuge der USA Air Force....🥇
In the early 70s, there was only one C-124 still in active service. It was at Elmendorf AFB. It crashed at a small base in Alaska and the crew survived. It was replaced with another C-124 that the reserves had been using. It was mainly used for oversized cargo at that time. I helped load and tie down a fire engine in it once.
C-17 is the immediate successor to the venerable C-141! I've heard that the engines on the C-17 are the same as those on the Boeing 757.....very strong!!!
Bismillahirrahmanirrahim,, innailaihi wa innailaihi irojiun Astaghfirullah wa atubu ilaihi ALLAHUMA SHOLI ALLA SAYYIDINA MUHAMMAD,, WA ALLA SAYYIDINA MUHAMMAD,, AAMIIN
The 40 variants of the C-130, and the BADDEST one is the AC-130. No one is safe when you hear or (on rare occasions see it), hell is about to rain down on you!
Not to mention the first all jet engine strategic airlifter, the C-141. My dad flew on a C-141A to Vietnam. That was the plane that replaced the C-124. I think the creator just liked referencing the “Globemaster” name/history.
Yes you sure did! O was a crew chief on six various fighters in my career but a friend at Kadena A B, Japan gave me the full tour of the Galaxy while she was busy loading up for next trip. Fabulous, huge, mind-boggling aircraft! The stories I could share but mostly derived from a giddy school child, seeing the giant for the first time! Thank you, aircrew and Galaxy crew chiefs!
I can attest that C-130's also definitely produce mini-tornados. They are most easily seen on rainy or moist days and when the throttle levers are at full thrust.
This video would really give the impression that the US went from a piston cargo plane to a jet-powered aircraft only after nearly 50 years. While the C-124 is the direct namesake of the C-17, the actual progression of technology saw multiple aircraft like the turboprop C-133, and later the jet-powered C-141 Starlifter and the C-5 Galaxy succeed the US Air Force's airlift heavy airlift roles in short order, with all seeing extensive service during the Vietnam War.
@@brettmorton7365 As well as stop without the use of the arresting cable and take off without the use of the catapult system. The largest aircraft to ever land on and take off from an aircraft carrier under its own power. What an amazing piece of equipment!
@@philhand5830 It was just really cool to watch the JATO ignite and the airplane almost instantly lurch upwards. It was awesome watching the Blue Angels C-130 climb straight up. It’s not often you see an airplane that big pointing it’s nose that high. That is until the Boeing 777 which was amazing too.
Not uncommon to see any modern jet engine suck stuff off the ground. That's why aircraft carrier crews line up and walk the flight deck looking for debris at the beginning of each day. Could avoid some VERY expensive repairs.
Simply the fact that the ground is there, but in every other direction there is a greater availability of air to replace that which is drawn into the engine. The ground is in the way of an efficient amount of intake air, creating a lower pressure zone comparatively therefore creating the vortex from the ground into the engine..
It was a cool evening at Douglas's west ramp, the area where airplanes were checked out while test flying. An MD-11 was idling, and I saw a mini tornado coming out the front of the #2 (center) engine. It was quite interesting. steve
Steve that vortex is normal during static runs at high power. It is often seen during engine trim runs. Interesting to note is that area has the highest measured noise level.
Worked as a FAA Aircraft Dispatcher at MDC LGB in Production/ Flight Test. Our offce was on the south end of the hanger accross from the delvery Center West Ramp. Worked there from 1986 to 2002.
It is very common phenomenon in airport airfield, usual 747 or other under wing jet engine can create the same thing, I saw a lot in 80's when I still working in Hong Kong airport as airfield operator, especially after raining.
Not exactly related, however I worked as a precision radar system Technician at Homestead AFB ( 1968-1971) and we had B52’s and their counterpart The C-141’s with it very prominent large and high tail section would present itself on the radar scope as 2 very close radar targets. The newbie air traffic controllers using the Precision Radar MPN-13 GCA would panic thinking they allowed 2 aircraft to become very close to each other. The C-141 was the ONLY aircraft in that time frame that would present 2 targets as the precision radar would make a radar target from the front section of the C-141 and another radar target from the tail section. Present day I wouldn’t know about. Go USAF!
My son in law is an RAF Pilot who flies the C17, he's on exchange in South Carolina for 3 years, he has constantly refused promotion because he loves flying this aircraft so much, he was flying one of the last planes out of Afghanistan. It is telling that the total cargo load of a C130 would fit on the tail gate of the C17.
Former C-130 mech here. I do not believe that final sentence is correct whatsoever, but I've been proven wrong before! :D I've ridden in both aircraft, none more than the 130.
@@bkailua1224 Are we talking about the same thing? The show said they used the thrust reverse feature to slow down speed of plane While in flight. That's what I'm talking about. Using that feature sounds crazy, when to slow down in flight all you have to do is not give it any gas. I would think anything over 200 mph would tear wings off a plane or loose so much lift it becomes extremely dangerous. I could be wrong just never heard of it being used that way.
You need moisture in the air, the jet fans turn at incredible rpm's, similar to the moisture clouds that form around the edges of a jets wing when moving fast.
In the Air Force, 1969-1976, we had a training film from the early fifties and it showed the same thing, draining a drip pan of water like that, and that was in idle. Let you know not to get too close when engines start.
Lots of jet engines can do this. It depends more on the temperature and humidity of the air than on anything else. I've seen idling F-16 and F-14s do it several times.
I just saw this on an engine on a 757 I took out of SFO while idle waiting on the ramp. So not unique to a C-17 by any means. Pretty cool to see. I could not get the iPhone camera to focus on anything but the raindrops on the window unfortunately.
As much as I love seeing the Blue Angels or Thunderbirds at an air show, I always get a kick out the C17 displays. Between the ridiculously short takeoffs and landings, the plane dipping it’s nose to bow at the audience after landing, and the engine tornados, they easily win the hearts of the audience.
fat albert was a c130 not a c 17
I have been a jet engine tech for over 45+ years and all jet engines will cause this phenomenon under certain conditions if their intakes are close enough to the ground. Evan Navy aircraft on the catapult will produce this effect when they inhale the catapult's steam venting out. The C-17 is a tough little plane, a modern C-47 for sure ! They should be around awhile.
This is true, but I must admit that the height of the intake on the C-17 does create more of a phenomenon than say...a 737, for instance. :)
@joemoore4027, I just noticed your comment after I posted mine. LOL! Sounds very familiar.
@davidwilburn6314, True. They do sit up there quite a ways. 🙂
Gb saving lives,men women children,🌻katie&gio&girl with all the kids,Boston 🕯☔️
Was an Air Force Jet Engine Tech….all Jets can make the “tornado” effect.
C17 is awesome!😎
الله اكبر
لا اله الا الله
اشهد الا اله الا الله
واشهد ان محمد رسول الله
Aweome power. Thanks to all service men and women and their families.
Virtually overlooked on the C17, is the "blown flaps" feature. The flaps have portions of a flap directly behind the engine. It's too hot for aluminum, so those portions are made of titanium. Most aircraft do not have flaps directly behind the engines. This adds immensely to the lift produced at very low air speeds. This allows very high angle of descent, while maintaining a low rate of descent. This combination allows a very short roll out on landing, & very short roll out on take off. Very few aircraft have put together this capability. The idea of blown flaps has been around a long time, but this aircraft came along just when materials technology made it practical.
The prototype demonstrator had "double blown flaps". Not just one series of flaps, but when deployed, two sets of flaps, like louvres in a window shade. I asked if the change from double blown to single blown would lengthen landing & takeoff distance. The answer was "yes, but it would still meet specs". Double blown is heavier, more expensive, more complex, & requires more maintenance. I think they made the right choice.
Great comment, thanks for sharing your insight
@@johnwilliams1091 From what I remember about aerodynamics, "blown" flaps means not having your engines blow against the flaps, but using bleed air from the engines (or having an own compressor) tthat iis blown out over the surface of the wings and the flaps in direction of the airflow to help it maintaining a smooth, laminar airflow, orver a higher angle of attack/larger flap angles, creating more lift at lower speeds (here: lower landing speed/shorter landing and takeoff runs)
Without that, the airflow delaminates earlier and becomes turbulent causing a massive increase in drag and loss of lift.
That would explain the ridiculous climb angles you can sometimes see on videos.
Especially the Lookeed F-104 Starfighter needed such Boundary Layer Control, or his stubby 21 foot wings would never have been enough for reasonable landing speeds.
Boundary layer: The layer of air over a wing/any surface where the the air transitions from a standstill (relative to the surface) to the full speed of the airflow.
That can happen over a distance of a few tenths of a millimeter til several meter, the faster the speed, the less the thickness, the bigger the surface, the thicker the boundary layer.
I learned that at very low eind speeds the bountary layer over water can be up to 10 meters (30 feet) thick.
That means the mast of a moving sailing ship pokes up through a massive change in wind direction. On the ground, you have no wind, the only wind you have is from your own movement and so directly from ahead. The higher you go, the more true wind combines with that induced wind,
For sailing, the real wind has to come about 30 degrees from the side over 90 degrees to 45 degrees from the back, or even directly from behind.
So you get an extreme change of apparent wind direction, from directly ahead to the true wind. You want the optimum angle of attack for the sail (which is aerodynamically more or less a wing set vertical) for maximum lift and minimal drag, so you trim it with a lot of twist, practically in centerline with the boat at the bottom, and let out far at the top.
Sorry for that deviation, but I LOOOOVE the universality of physics. That once you understand the principle, you can apply it in all kinds of situation.
Therefore my car will not get a cool spoiler - unless someone can prove to me that it is optimized to really create no additional or even less drag.
Race cars have ample power and need pressure on the tires to avoid wheelspin, and ground pressure at low speeds to not slip in curves.
To produce lots of downforce for the curves, the wings are massive, but that means enormous drag on the straights at high speed, so you must compromise.
Sacrifice top speed to be fast in corners.
But as "normal" driver, do I really need that?
At zero speed, the lack of wing speed means the spoiler/wing has no effect.
In the city, you don't need it, too many dangers around.
On country roads, OK.
And in the US your speed is 55 mph anyhow, so who cares about losing top speed.
But here in Germany, where we still have about 8,000 kms (5000 miles) of unlimited autobahn, reducing my top speed would be stupid.
It's an old car, so I am careful not to overdo it, but I have pushed it some times up to 210 kph/130 mph, and it is fun when due to the low drag you are able to make that with 10 liter/100 km / 24 mpg. which is about the average mileage I get out of the 28 year-old car in mixed traffic anyhow.
A C 17 making a mini tornado is not alone in its ability to make them: lots of US Naval aircraft make them every damn day!
I’m pleased to see everyone wearing their pt belts. Makes the situation so much safer.
We called them disco belts… not used for PT in the USAF
@@justing42 I can’t believe such a stupid idea ever came to be. Most useless thing the military has ever produced. Well maybe not that extreme but it’s close.
Watching and listening to the maintenance part of this video is like watching behind the scenes of a movie, but better.
I'm retired U.S. Navy, but I can testify that if the USAF didn't have the C-130, C-17 and C-5, we'd be waaay behind! It is not only powerful but not a bad looking aircraft at that!
It's overall very mechanic friendly too. Configuring a C-17 for various missions is WAY easier to do than configuring a C-141 for the same missions.
Any jet engine can create a mini-tornado. I worked C-141B & C, C-5A, B & C, C-130E & H, KC-135A, Q & R, KC-10A, C-17A and F-16C & D block aircraft and numberous civilian aircraft. In the presence of moisture, especially in early morning dew or fog, all of these aircraft engines created min-tornados. Even C-130 turbo-prop engines can create tornados under certain conditions...
It’s called a vortex
@@justing42 👍
I was on active duty Army back in early 90s at Fort Lewis, WA. We were doing a PT run around the airfield and saw this new plane doing "touch and go" runs. I was use to seeing C-5, C-141, KC-135, and C-130s and had no clue what cargo plane that was until many years later.
And what was the cargo?
@@danthepaninjapancq Don't know? It was just circling doing touch and go on the Army airfield. It didn't have any markings other than the normal gray paint job.
American built! Now let's get those b-52's re-engined
They are, but going to use RR engines. Yea America.
@@jonbutcher9805they’re actually Pratt and Whitney engines
@@user-ps2lc9rq3i thank you
Umm no PW lost the contract to RR engines thank you. America isn’t as great as you Americans think! It’s not even in the top 5 greatest countries FACT.
@@moulonz military power wise it is #1 but I see what you mean and agree
The c-141 starlifter was the workhorse that carried us to war in Vietnam. I know you want to tie the III to the II, but the c-130 was more prevalent during this era also.
I spent 24 hours on a 141 going from Eglin AFB the Korat Thailand in 1968. We stopped at Elmindorf Alaska and Yakota Japan.
Excellent machine being built and maintained. Special air lift units to deliver supplies and soldiers behind enemies lines in matter of hours when time has come. They proved there mettle before and years to come.
You should see 4 B-1B F101's at full AB on a rainy day. Palmdale Ca engine run...I think it was around 1995. 4 of the biggest rain tornado's I've ever seen.
THAT DAMA MUSIC NOISE IS UNCALLED FOR
These are amazing. Been in them many times and combat take offs /landings are freaking amazing
I am an Air Force vet 3May68--22Dec63, 42251,
and worked on C-47's to the C-5...no C-17's during that span. But Old Shakey was a real adventure. I had to get inside the wings many times. Up in the tail a couple. Both A & C models.
I even saw the John Wayne movie based on the career of Red Adair, the dude who specialized in putting out oil rig fires...he had his own personal Shakey! You guys make some awesome videos!!!
Wow that is a great story! Thanks for serving and thanks for sharing.🍻
Wasn't that a C-123K Provider?
Nothing is more powerful than our God Almighty
الله اكبر والعزة لله ولرسوله وللمؤمنين
USA Powerful Super Army! God bless America !
America is the best in all line viva america
It can also land on aircraft carriers
These engines might have some power but the C17 cruises slower than most commercial airliners. Love the reverse on this airplane ✈️ C17s are amazing aircraft
True, but the reason why it cruises more slowly has more to do with airframe design than it does the engines. Those F117 engines put out around 40K of thrust each. Added together, that's 160K. That's more thrust than the KC-135's F108 engines put out, but the KC-135 is lighter, has a more "sleek" aerodynamic design and cruises at around M0.84 vs the C-17's M0.77.
Not to say that stronger engines are necessary to produce those visible vortices though. I started my USAF career as a crew chief on EC-130 aircraft. I did numerous maintenance engine runs on those birds in which vortices (tornados) going between the intakes and the ground were visible. They're like rainbows. They can show up on any jet powered engine, but they are easiest to see when weather conditions are right for it.
I really don’t like forgetting the c- 141 I was a jet engine man in the 70’s you left out a lot of history there.Not too happy.
The C-17 was not the successor to the C-124; there were several aircraft in between: the C-141, C-130, C-5, & C-133. The C-17 compliments the C-5 & C-130 aircraft, providing airlift capability greater than the C-130, but less than the C-5.
Thanks for mentioning that. I was fixing to if somebody didn't.
That was going to be one of my comments as well. Thx for covering it already.
My dad flew the C-141s thanks for bringing that up.
Are they still flying the C141 ? I remember those from 40 yrs ago
@@wallbanger3 A quick query on the Internet says it's now retired from service.
Bin überwältigt von diesen Flugzeug Typ der USA Air Force..habe heute Mittag ein Bericht über flugzeugträger gesehen es war faszinierend mit den Flugzeuge der USA Air Force....🥇
In the early 70s, there was only one C-124 still in active service. It was at Elmendorf AFB. It crashed at a small base in Alaska and the crew survived. It was replaced with another C-124 that the reserves had been using. It was mainly used for oversized cargo at that time. I helped load and tie down a fire engine in it once.
One of my favorites 🙂
C-17 is the immediate successor to the venerable C-141! I've heard that the engines on the C-17 are the same as those on the Boeing 757.....very strong!!!
McDonnell Douglas, you can give that builder the credit they deserve. F-15 too!
Thank you for the concert.😎🌴
That's a sophisticated plane. Like damn. I knew what they were, but did not realize they are perfect air whales.
I actually went in a C-17 today and it is super cool
nice video, i like your content
P and w engine is backbone of aircraft
Usa ❤
Fantastic
Bisa Membuat Mini Tornado mister
If the US had never been the predatory military dependant nation that it is, we would never have seen this engineering marvels.
Tuyệt Vòi lắm
Bismillahirrahmanirrahim,, innailaihi wa innailaihi irojiun
Astaghfirullah wa atubu ilaihi
ALLAHUMA SHOLI ALLA SAYYIDINA MUHAMMAD,, WA ALLA SAYYIDINA MUHAMMAD,, AAMIIN
The 40 variants of the C-130, and the BADDEST one is the AC-130. No one is safe when you hear or (on rare occasions see it), hell is about to rain down on you!
Sorry but you totally skipped over the C-5
Not to mention the first all jet engine strategic airlifter, the C-141. My dad flew on a C-141A to Vietnam. That was the plane that replaced the C-124. I think the creator just liked referencing the “Globemaster” name/history.
Yes you sure did! O was a crew chief on six various fighters in my career but a friend at Kadena A B, Japan gave me the full tour of the Galaxy while she was busy loading up for next trip.
Fabulous, huge, mind-boggling aircraft!
The stories I could share but mostly derived from a giddy school child, seeing the giant for the first time! Thank you, aircrew and Galaxy crew chiefs!
They sure did C-5s can create tornadoes adjoined between 2 engines
😂
I used to stand ground observer on C5A at Dover AFB in 80s for engine runs they would do same on humid weather
I can attest that C-130's also definitely produce mini-tornados. They are most easily seen on rainy or moist days and when the throttle levers are at full thrust.
This video would really give the impression that the US went from a piston cargo plane to a jet-powered aircraft only after nearly 50 years. While the C-124 is the direct namesake of the C-17, the actual progression of technology saw multiple aircraft like the turboprop C-133, and later the jet-powered C-141 Starlifter and the C-5 Galaxy succeed the US Air Force's airlift heavy airlift roles in short order, with all seeing extensive service during the Vietnam War.
The C-130 was even more impressive when it had JATO capability.
Or when they landed one on a carrier!
@@brettmorton7365 As well as stop without the use of the arresting cable and take off without the use of the catapult system.
The largest aircraft to ever land on and take off from an aircraft carrier under its own power. What an amazing piece of equipment!
@Philliph Whirley and i believe it started its take off from where it stopped its landing! You're absolutely right, amazing piece of kit!
Oh, yeah!!! Loved the max effort takeoffs and landings!!! Yeah, riiight!!!
@@philhand5830 It was just really cool to watch the JATO ignite and the airplane almost instantly lurch upwards. It was awesome watching the Blue Angels C-130 climb straight up. It’s not often you see an airplane that big pointing it’s nose that high. That is until the Boeing 777 which was amazing too.
The C124 was replaced by the C141 and the C141 was replaced by the C17.
I've seen the same vortex form in front of both F15 and F16 inlets.
Thank you John, vortices (vortex) is the word I was trying to remember! Tiny tornadoes.... I miss the flight line ops! 32 yr. C-130 nose picker!!!
In Charleston SC these things come flying over the beaches very low. What a magnificent beast. God bless America!
c-141a star lifter
Nice😍
The "waterspout" effect has been seen in 737, A320, 767, 747-400, and 777s. This is not just during thrust reverse, but in idle.
I've seen the back end of electric Motors do the same thing. It's nothing groundbreaking
Do miss those AGS Days sometimes.
谢谢分享❤️
They know they love making giant dust clouds just like being a kid on a dirt road. Can't grow out of it.
Not uncommon to see any modern jet engine suck stuff off the ground. That's why aircraft carrier crews line up and walk the flight deck looking for debris at the beginning of each day. Could avoid some VERY expensive repairs.
We did that in the Air Force…its called a FOD walk
curious why it pulls from the ground. what sneaky force is at work here lol
Simply the fact that the ground is there, but in every other direction there is a greater availability of air to replace that which is drawn into the engine. The ground is in the way of an efficient amount of intake air, creating a lower pressure zone comparatively therefore creating the vortex from the ground into the engine..
@@brettmorton7365 thank you! i appreciate you taking the time to answer my question!
@@invictusfarmer7188 glad to shed some light 👍🏻
Who else thought this was going to be a short video😂
I see the C-17 take off and land all the time, I'm just now on the road from Travis AFB
Every turbo fan/jet engin does this if the air is humid enough...
Let’s build new B 52 s ,not just new engine s
It was a cool evening at Douglas's west ramp,
the area where airplanes were checked out
while test flying. An MD-11 was idling, and I
saw a mini tornado coming out the front of
the #2 (center) engine. It was quite interesting.
steve
Steve that vortex is normal during static runs at high power. It is often seen during engine trim runs. Interesting to note is that area has the highest measured noise level.
Worked as a FAA Aircraft Dispatcher at MDC LGB in Production/ Flight Test. Our offce was on the south end of the hanger accross from the delvery Center West Ramp. Worked there from 1986 to 2002.
@@keithfreitas2983 any relation to a Freitas who worked for TWA at LAX?
Es bello deverian contruir uno cinco beses más grande o diez beses más grande
Yep and C141
We call it BLI(Bounday Layer Ingestion).
4:16 you're welcome
Good
All jet engine's are capable of water tornadoes from the tarmac.
I wonder what the gas bill is ? .. I love it
It is very common phenomenon in airport airfield, usual 747 or other under wing jet engine can create the same thing, I saw a lot in 80's when I still working in Hong Kong airport as airfield operator, especially after raining.
Not exactly related, however I worked as a precision radar system Technician at Homestead AFB ( 1968-1971) and we had B52’s and their counterpart The C-141’s with it very prominent large and high tail section would present itself on the radar scope as 2 very close radar targets. The newbie air traffic controllers using the Precision Radar MPN-13 GCA would panic thinking they allowed 2 aircraft to become very close to each other. The C-141 was the ONLY aircraft in that time frame that would present 2 targets as the precision radar would make a radar target from the front section of the C-141 and another radar target from the tail section. Present day I wouldn’t know about. Go USAF!
please play the music softer.
My son in law is an RAF Pilot who flies the C17, he's on exchange in South Carolina for 3 years, he has constantly refused promotion because he loves flying this aircraft so much, he was flying one of the last planes out of Afghanistan.
It is telling that the total cargo load of a C130 would fit on the tail gate of the C17.
Former C-130 mech here. I do not believe that final sentence is correct whatsoever, but I've been proven wrong before! :D I've ridden in both aircraft, none more than the 130.
@@davidwilburn6314 My son in law as I said is a C17 pilot and it was him who told me that.
@@stevewhite6861 I've learned in my long history of aviation never to trust pilots in such matters! I want empirical data. 😆
@@davidwilburn6314 I trust my son in law and I have been on a C17 as well.
@@stevewhite6861 I'm pursuing it and I'll get back w you. Quite curious now
It can use thrust reverse in flight. Is that true. It sounds crazy.
that is not new, some of the 4 engine jets of the 50's and 60's did this.
@@bkailua1224 Are we talking about the same thing? The show said they used the thrust reverse feature to slow down speed of plane While in flight. That's what I'm talking about. Using that feature sounds crazy, when to slow down in flight all you have to do is not give it any gas. I would think anything over 200 mph would tear wings off a plane or loose so much lift it becomes extremely dangerous. I could be wrong just never heard of it being used that way.
You need moisture in the air, the jet fans turn at incredible rpm's, similar to the moisture clouds that form around the edges of a jets wing when moving fast.
Jets create vortecs in many ways. Small "tornadoes" also are created by the tip of the wing slicing through the air!
The C-17 isn't the successor to the C-124. Ever heard of the C-141?
In the Air Force, 1969-1976, we had a training film from the early fifties and it showed the same thing, draining a drip pan of water like that, and that was in idle. Let you know not to get too close when engines start.
Actually the Globemaster (C-74) was used in the Berlin Airlift!
Did you forget the C5As and the C141s?
It’s called a vortex gentleman.
I bet that thing burns more fuel on takeoff than I'll use in my entire life lmao.
Lots of jet engines can do this. It depends more on the temperature and humidity of the air than on anything else. I've seen idling F-16 and F-14s do it several times.
Eu não sabia que este modelo de aviõe C 17 da força aérea americana andava para trás também 🤔🤔🇧🇷
All those weapons and they still lost Nam lol.
Saw this on F-16 for 5 years
Ah, I’m sorry but you forgot about the C-141 Globe Master. That cargo US Airforce transport plane kicked but during Vietnam.
I just saw this on an engine on a 757 I took out of SFO while idle waiting on the ramp. So not unique to a C-17 by any means. Pretty cool to see. I could not get the iPhone camera to focus on anything but the raindrops on the window unfortunately.
Get up, stand up, shuffle to the door......
the c-141a cruise speed was 550 nots the burn off fuel 12000
C141 Starlite was fore runner
This, big enough to carry a container.
سبحان الله
KC-135's and KC-46's do this as well
howd we go from c17 to c130?
How many pounds of thrust?
I have witness the C-17 reverse