Talk:Boeing C-17 Globemaster III: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 23:28, 18 July 2007

Latest revision as of 14:50, 28 July 2025

(278 intermediate revisions by 76 users not shown)

Line 1:

{{talk header}}

{{WPMILHIST

{{WikiProject banner shell|class= B|

{{WikiProject Military history|class=B

|importance=High

|B-Class-1=yes <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. -->

|Aviation-task-force=yes

|B-Class-2=yes <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. -->

|US-task-force=yes

|B-Class-3=yes <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. -->

|Weaponry-task-force=

|B-Class-4=yes <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. -->

|B-Class-5=yes <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. -->

|Aviation=yes |US=yes }}

{{WikiProject Aviation|B-Class-1=yes <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. -->

|B-Class-2=yes <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. -->

|B-Class-3=yes <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. -->

|B-Class-4=yes <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. -->

|B-Class-5=yes <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. -->

|Aircraft=yes}}

}}

{{User:MiszaBot/config

| algo=old(365d)

| archive=Talk:Boeing C-17 Globemaster III/Archive %(counter)d

| counter=3

| maxarchivesize=75K

| archiveheader={{Automatic archive navigator}}

| minthreadsleft=4

| minthreadstoarchive=1

}}

{{WPAVIATION|class=B|Aircraft-project=yes}}

{{Archive box|auto=long}}

==Nickname (the Moose)==

== Missing history? ==

Flight crews, according to Task & Purpose, call the C-17 "the Moose" for the sound that the pressure relief vents make when ground refueling sounding like a female moose in heat.[https://taskandpurpose.com/news/air-force-c-17-moose-jet/] Unless it already is and I missed it, can this be incorporated into the opening paragraph similar to how "Viper" is on the F-16 page? [[User:TheNomad416|TheNomad416]] ([[User talk:TheNomad416|talk]]) 20:59, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

:Definitely. [[Boeing B-52 Stratofortress]] has a similar one, and I found several magazine-like and news-like sources.

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! [[User:Maury Markowitz|Maury]] 21:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

:How's this? @[[User:TheNomad416|TheNomad416]]

* Some development problems and a budget cut added 3-4 years to the schedule, according to Global security's page.[http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/c-17-history.htm] -[[User:Fnlayson|Fnlayson]] 22:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

::"Flight crews call the C-17 "'''the Moose'''", because during ground refuelling, the pressure relief vents make a sound like the call of a female moose in heat."

** 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. -[[User:Fnlayson|Fnlayson]] 18:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

:* {{cite newspaper |author=Barrie Barber |date=January 11, 2015 |title=Wright-Patt crew plays crucial Afghanistan role: As combat operations end, Ohio airmen make frequent, risky flights |work=Dayton Daily News |issn=08970920 |url=https://www.proquest.com/newspapers/wright-patt-crew-plays-crucial-afghanistan-role/docview/1644372252/se-2 | id={{proquest|1644372252}} |quote=After a seven-hour flight that began from Ramstein Air Base in Germany, the "Moose" as the C-17 is nicknamed, is thirsty. The plane makes the sound of a moose call as fuel pushes out air inside the tanks.}}

:* {{cite magazine |url=https://taskandpurpose.com/news/air-force-c-17-moose-jet/ |title=Here’s why the Air Force’s workhorse C-17 is called ‘the Moose’ |author=David Roza |work=Task & Purpose |date=August 6, 2021}}

:[[User:Komonzia|Komonzia]] ([[User talk:Komonzia|talk]]) 00:28, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

::That looks good. I'm thinking the end of the first paragraph is the best place to put it since it's the shortest. But I'm having trouble getting it to format. I've tried copying and pasting it, but the source links just appear as a big block of text. I don't know what I'm doing wrong. [[User:TheNomad416|TheNomad416]] ([[User talk:TheNomad416|talk]]) 00:41, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

:::I have copied the wikitext source code over now. [[User:Komonzia|Komonzia]] ([[User talk:Komonzia|talk]]) 00:45, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

:::* An article's [[MOS:LEAD|Lead]] is a place to summarize all major content, not introduce trivia type info. The Operational history would be a more appropriate section for this. [[User:Fnlayson|&#45;Fnlayson]] ([[User talk:Fnlayson|talk]]) 02:24, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

:::*:I don't agree that alternative names shouldn't be in the lead. Usually that's where they are placed. [[User:Komonzia|Komonzia]] ([[User talk:Komonzia|talk]]) 06:37, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

:::*::The whole explanation doesn't need to be in the lead. If this truly is a common nickname, then it should go somewhere in the lead, sourced to the main sourced used in the body. Usually, the nickname needs to be common outside the military too, such as with "Huey", "Viper", etc, to warrant mention in the lead. At this point, it seems to be on a par with " Fat Amy" in being uncommon outside the military. [[User:BilCat|BilCat]] ([[User talk:BilCat|talk]]) 11:03, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

== Images position ==

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 [[User:Hudicourt|Hudicourt]] 22:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

@[[User:Fnlayson|Fnlayson]]. This might be a very minor & redundant topic to discuss (so forgive me if it does sound like one) but don't you think that [[Boeing C-17 Globemaster III#Indian Air Force|over here]], the text looks a bit misaligned and sort of distracting? Wouldn't it be better if it's [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boeing_C-17_Globemaster_III&diff=prev&oldid=1284794300#Indian_Air_Force formatted like this]? If the pattern is somehow repeated, I'm afraid it might soon look [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boeing_737&oldid=1249894764#737-400 like this] (Scroll down in the link). I'm not saying that the place where you put that image is sort of bad, I'm just saying where I think the best position for the image is. What do you think? [[User:Ivebeenhacked|Hacked]] ([[User talk:Ivebeenhacked|Talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Ivebeenhacked|Contribs]]) 02:07, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

== Unimproved runways ==

: No, not to me. MOS:IMAGES says to ''not'' place images directly side by side which [[MOS:SANDWICH|sandwich]] text between them. [[User:Fnlayson|&#45;Fnlayson]] ([[User talk:Fnlayson|talk]]) 02:42, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

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

::Wasn't aware of this. Thank you. [[User:Ivebeenhacked|Hacked]] ([[User talk:Ivebeenhacked|Talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Ivebeenhacked|Contribs]]) 03:08, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

== Manufacturing Life of the C-17 ==

: 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).[http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=86 C-17 fact sheet, US Air Force]

In [[Special:Diff/1294435077 | Edit 1294435077]], User [[User:Fnlayson | Fnlayson]] changed what I had put there

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

Boeing, which merged with McDonnell Douglas in 1997, continued to make the C-17. Between McDonnell Douglas and successor Boeing, the C-17 was manufactured for more than two decades.

== Specifications ==

to

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. -[[User:Fnlayson|Fnlayson]] 21:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

McDonnell Douglas and Boeing, which merged with McDonnell Douglas in 1997, manufactured the C-17 for more than two decades.

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.

[[User:Hudicourt|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. -[[User:Fnlayson|Fnlayson]] 21:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I have 2 problems with Fnlayson's wording

==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. - [[User:BillCJ|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. -[[User:Fnlayson|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. - [[User:BillCJ|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. [[User:Snickerdo|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. [[User:Snickerdo|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. -[[User:Fnlayson|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. [[User:Snickerdo|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. -[[User:Fnlayson|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. [[User:Snickerdo|Snickerdo]] 18:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

# It reads like BOTH McDonnell Douglas and Boeing merged with McDonnell Douglas

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.

# It misses the idea of succession of ownership. One period under McDonnell Douglas. A subsequent period under Boeing.

I do not want to get into a Change/Counter-change battle. I will not change Fnlayson's edit without some agreement from this Talk Page. But I think that Fnlayson made the C-17 article worse.

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! - [[User:BillCJ|BillCJ]] 18:49, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

{{ Break | 2 }} [[Special:Contributions/71.162.197.46|71.162.197.46]] ([[User talk:71.162.197.46|talk]]) 01:40, 8 June 2025 (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. [[User:Snickerdo|Snickerdo]] 19:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

: I corrected/clarified the wording to "McDonnell Douglas and later [[Boeing]] after it merged with McDonnell Douglas in 1997, manufactured the C-17 for more than two decades." [[User:Fnlayson|&#45;Fnlayson]] ([[User talk:Fnlayson|talk]]) 02:30, 8 June 2025 (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. -[[User:Fnlayson|Fnlayson]] 16:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

::OK. Thanks.

:: 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. [[User:ThePointblank|ThePointblank]] 21:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

::{{ Break | 1 }} [[Special:Contributions/71.162.197.46|71.162.197.46]] ([[User talk:71.162.197.46|talk]]) 03:08, 8 June 2025 (UTC)