Another C-17 On The Way

"John A. Weeks III" wrote in message
...
I drove past the charter terminal at MSP this evening, and
happened to see another C-17 at the terminal in UK markings.
Looks like the Brits are getting another C-17 delivery. It
was too dark to see the tail numbers.


Last I heard the RAF was due its fifth C-17 in March/April this year for 99
Sqn at RAF Brize Norton, so that tallies.

Don't suppose you got a look at the Union Flag, is it still upside down?!
We'll see if the Boeing paint shop reads ram! )

Jim D


-john-

"Jim Doyle" wrote in message
...

"John A. Weeks III" wrote in message
...
I drove past the charter terminal at MSP this evening, and
happened to see another C-17 at the terminal in UK markings.
Looks like the Brits are getting another C-17 delivery. It
was too dark to see the tail numbers.


Last I heard the RAF was due its fifth C-17 in March/April this year for
99
Sqn at RAF Brize Norton, so that tallies.

It does? I thought the current lease deal was for four aircraft. There have
been rumors of a possible expansion of this, or an outright purshase of some
C-17s (up to six, according to AFM), but AFAIK nothing has been released? I
did read where one of the original four got a bit banged up during a landing
at Kabul (wingtip and engine striking the ground at it settled in) this past
December; could it be that they are returning that aircraft for more
extensive repairs and this bird is a replacement under the lease deal?

Brooks


Don't suppose you got a look at the Union Flag, is it still upside down?!
We'll see if the Boeing paint shop reads ram! )

Jim D


-john-

"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
...


It does? I thought the current lease deal was for four aircraft. There
have
been rumors of a possible expansion of this, or an outright purshase of
some
C-17s (up to six, according to AFM), but AFAIK nothing has been released?
I
did read where one of the original four got a bit banged up during a
landing
at Kabul (wingtip and engine striking the ground at it settled in) this
past
December; could it be that they are returning that aircraft for more
extensive repairs and this bird is a replacement under the lease deal?

Brooks


There was a recent article in global defence that mentioned that
usage of the four aircraft was running at 200% of that envisaged
in the original lease. Aparently the RAF has increased the
squadron establishment by 8 flightcrew and 22 engineers
and the RAF has made it clear that it would like to increase the fleet
to at least 12 . The MOD has apparently been negotiating
about the outright purchase of at least some aircraft.

Keith

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...

"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
...


It does? I thought the current lease deal was for four aircraft. There
have
been rumors of a possible expansion of this, or an outright purshase of
some
C-17s (up to six, according to AFM), but AFAIK nothing has been
released?
I
did read where one of the original four got a bit banged up during a
landing
at Kabul (wingtip and engine striking the ground at it settled in) this
past
December; could it be that they are returning that aircraft for more
extensive repairs and this bird is a replacement under the lease deal?

Brooks


There was a recent article in global defence that mentioned that
usage of the four aircraft was running at 200% of that envisaged
in the original lease. Aparently the RAF has increased the
squadron establishment by 8 flightcrew and 22 engineers
and the RAF has made it clear that it would like to increase the fleet
to at least 12 . The MOD has apparently been negotiating
about the outright purchase of at least some aircraft.

Yeah, that pretty much agrees with what I have read, though the number I saw
was a possible increase of six aircraft, either leased or purchased bweing
possible, for a total strength of ten. Haven't seen any confirmation of a
deal as of yet, though.

Brooks


Keith

"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
...

"Jim Doyle" wrote in message
...

"John A. Weeks III" wrote in message
...
I drove past the charter terminal at MSP this evening, and
happened to see another C-17 at the terminal in UK markings.
Looks like the Brits are getting another C-17 delivery. It
was too dark to see the tail numbers.


Last I heard the RAF was due its fifth C-17 in March/April this year for
99
Sqn at RAF Brize Norton, so that tallies.

It does? I thought the current lease deal was for four aircraft. There
have
been rumors of a possible expansion of this, or an outright purshase of
some
C-17s (up to six, according to AFM), but AFAIK nothing has been released?
I
did read where one of the original four got a bit banged up during a
landing
at Kabul (wingtip and engine striking the ground at it settled in) this
past
December; could it be that they are returning that aircraft for more
extensive repairs and this bird is a replacement under the lease deal?


Yes that's quite right, the original case was just the four lease aircraft.
I was lucky enough to visit 99 Squadron last November, and was told a fifth
aircraft was planned then for EIS late this spring - nothing official, just
from one of the Flt Sgt loadies.

Jim D


Brooks

"Jim Doyle" wrote in message
...

snip

Last I heard the RAF was due its fifth C-17 in March/April this year for
99
Sqn at RAF Brize Norton, so that tallies.

Don't suppose you got a look at the Union Flag, is it still upside down?!
We'll see if the Boeing paint shop reads ram! )


Is this another example of a flag being the 'wrong' way on the starboard
side of the aircraft? Or did they truly stuff it up?

The Aussie shipbuilders managed to paint the RAN ANZAC-class that was built
following a RNZN one in the RNZN paint scheme - red (grey?) faces all round.


--
Errol Cavit |
"You should never bet against anything in science at odds of more than about
10^12 to 1."
Attributed to Ernest Rutherford.

I was told by a crew member from Brize that they paint it like you would see
on a flagpole, with the pole at the front of the aircraft. Therefore one
side would be the reverse of the other.

wrote:
I was told by a crew member from Brize that they paint it like you
would see on a flagpole, with the pole at the front of the aircraft.
Therefore one side would be the reverse of the other.

Which is what I said the last time this topic came up. But no one believed
me.


--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)

wrote in message ...
I was told by a crew member from Brize that they paint it like you would see
on a flagpole, with the pole at the front of the aircraft. Therefore one
side would be the reverse of the other.

Yep, that's why I put 'wrong' in quotes - most, if not all, countries
do this with flags on aircraft, ships etc. But it's entirely possible
that someone actually mucked things up - the earlier post wasn't
clear. The Union Flag isn't exactly intuitive when you start flipping
it around.

Cheers, Errol Cavit
"You should never bet against anything in science at odds of more than
about 10^12 to 1." Attributed to Ernest Rutherford.

Errol Cavit wrote:

wrote in message ...
I was told by a crew member from Brize that they paint it like you would see
on a flagpole, with the pole at the front of the aircraft. Therefore one
side would be the reverse of the other.

Yep, that's why I put 'wrong' in quotes - most, if not all, countries
do this with flags on aircraft, ships etc. But it's entirely possible
that someone actually mucked things up - the earlier post wasn't
clear. The Union Flag isn't exactly intuitive when you start flipping
it around.

Cheers, Errol Cavit
"You should never bet against anything in science at odds of more than
about 10^12 to 1." Attributed to Ernest Rutherford.

That was exactly my point when it last came up..............

Take a look at the Union Flag at :- http://www.fotw.net/flags/gb.html

Now put the flagpole on the left - no problem there - that's what I presume you see on the port side of the a/c.

Now - detach the pole - and move it to the right side of the flag - the flag is now UPSIDE DOWN - because the
upper white band next to the pole is narrow.

If the C-17's are painted like this, then it is clearly wrong.

If however you go back to having the pole on the left - and then rotate the flag about the pole - without
detaching it from the pole - until it is now to the left of the pole, that is OK.

The golden rule is - the upper white band next to the pole should be the wide one.

Ken

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++
Ken Duffey - Flanker Freak & Russian Aviation Enthusiast
Flankers Website - http://www.flankers.co.uk/
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++