wbt5845 said:

---

---

GAC06 said:

---

I'll buy you a drink some time

---

Pooh Ah said:

---

---

Pooh Ah said:

---

Vought F4U Corsair

---

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

It's the tactical landing that's really cool...

This isn't the greatest video, but it's got some great video of Operation Credible Sport where Lockheed strapped rockets onto a C-130 for ultra short takeoff and landing to land and extract the the Iranian embassy hostages in the 80's from a soccer stadium. Essentially there were rockets to slow the plane down once it touched down. Crazy thing is that it mostly worked. Retrofitted plane was destroyed in a pilot error accident just before the mission would have handed though.

---

jkag89 said:

---

Space Shuttle Enterprise on top of a Boeing 747 "the Shuttle Carrier Aircraft" while a Concorde is taking off, Dulles International Airport 1986.

---

Hey Nav said:

---

The C-17 is a wonderful aircraft. Is the incident at Elemendorf in 2010 the only fatal crash?

---

CharlieBrown17 said:

---

Min runway for the 130 is only 500 feet shorter than the 17.

Fully loaded 130 Js are still 100k or so less than an empty 17.

If you want a lot of **** put somewhere it probably shouldn't be able to go, a 17 is your answer.


Also wouldn't call an accident during testing of a brand new rocket landing system destroyed due to pilot error.

---

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

CharlieBrown17 said:

---

Min runway for the 130 is only 500 feet shorter than the 17.

Fully loaded 130 Js are still 100k or so less than an empty 17.

If you want a lot of **** put somewhere it probably shouldn't be able to go, a 17 is your answer.


Also wouldn't call an accident during testing of a brand new rocket landing system destroyed due to pilot error.

---

The min runway for the C-17 is also almost twice as wide though, so you need just over 2x the area even though it's only 17% longer.

The C-17 didn't exist in the early 80's, so it wasn't an option. They also had to land in a stadium, so min takeoff and landing was at an absolute premium. C-130 would have been the choice regardless because every inch mattered.


Pilot fired the rockets too early before the wheels were down. The plane essentially stopped midair and dropped. They'd had several successful tests previously. Definitely his error. Understandably so, but still his error.

---

CharlieBrown17 said:

---

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

CharlieBrown17 said:

---

Min runway for the 130 is only 500 feet shorter than the 17.

Fully loaded 130 Js are still 100k or so less than an empty 17.

If you want a lot of **** put somewhere it probably shouldn't be able to go, a 17 is your answer.


Also wouldn't call an accident during testing of a brand new rocket landing system destroyed due to pilot error.

---

The min runway for the C-17 is also almost twice as wide though, so you need just over 2x the area even though it's only 17% longer.

The C-17 didn't exist in the early 80's, so it wasn't an option. They also had to land in a stadium, so min takeoff and landing was at an absolute premium. C-130 would have been the choice regardless because every inch mattered.


Pilot fired the rockets too early before the wheels were down. The plane essentially stopped midair and dropped. They'd had several successful tests previously. Definitely his error. Understandably so, but still his error.

---

The last set of rockets was owned by the FE who lit them off before they were wheels down during the mishap.

I guess I'll just fundamentally disagree with trying to point out and assign fault to someone risking their life to test a system 30+ years later.

---

aTmAg said:

---

CharlieBrown17 said:

---

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

CharlieBrown17 said:

---

Min runway for the 130 is only 500 feet shorter than the 17.

Fully loaded 130 Js are still 100k or so less than an empty 17.

If you want a lot of **** put somewhere it probably shouldn't be able to go, a 17 is your answer.


Also wouldn't call an accident during testing of a brand new rocket landing system destroyed due to pilot error.

---

The min runway for the C-17 is also almost twice as wide though, so you need just over 2x the area even though it's only 17% longer.

The C-17 didn't exist in the early 80's, so it wasn't an option. They also had to land in a stadium, so min takeoff and landing was at an absolute premium. C-130 would have been the choice regardless because every inch mattered.


Pilot fired the rockets too early before the wheels were down. The plane essentially stopped midair and dropped. They'd had several successful tests previously. Definitely his error. Understandably so, but still his error.

---

The last set of rockets was owned by the FE who lit them off before they were wheels down during the mishap.

I guess I'll just fundamentally disagree with trying to point out and assign fault to someone risking their life to test a system 30+ years later.

---

Seems to me that they should have wired the rockets to the weight on wheels sensor. So the pilot/FE flips a switch when they are about to land, and then the rockets fire automatically when there is weight on both aft wheels.

---