Talk:Boeing C-17 Globemaster III

Military history: Aviation / North America / United States Start‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history

Start

This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked	To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: \| b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> \| b2<!--Coverage and accuracy --> = <yes/no> \| b3<!--Structure --> = <yes/no> \| b4<!--Grammar and style --> = <yes/no> \| b5<!--Supporting materials --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion.

Associated task forces:
/
	Military aviation task force
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force

Aviation: Aircraft B‑class

This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation

B

This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked	To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: \| b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> \| b2<!--Coverage and accuracy --> = <yes/no> \| b3<!--Structure --> = <yes/no> \| b4<!--Grammar and style --> = <yes/no> \| b5<!--Supporting materials --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion.

This article is supported by the aircraft project.

Archives

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
  - 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)[reply]
  - 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)[reply]
    - 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)[reply]
      - 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)[reply]
        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)[reply]
        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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]