Это видео недоступно.
Сожалеем об этом.

This US Air Force C-17 Engine is So Powerful it Can Create a Mini Tornado

Поделиться
HTML-код
  • Опубликовано: 8 янв 2023
  • Welcome back to the Fluctus Channel for an amazing look into the capabilities of some of the world's greatest military airlift cargo planes like the C-17 Globemaster III and the unique features they possess.
    Fluctus is a website and RUclips channel dedicated to sea geeks. Whenever you are curious or an incorrigible lover of this mysterious world, our videos are made for you !
    We publish 3 videos a week on our RUclips channel and many more articles on our website.
    Feel free to subscribe to not miss any of our updates and visit our website to discover additional content.
    Don’t forget to follow us on twitter:
    / fluctusofficial
    Please keep the comments section respectful. Any spam, insults or troll will be deleted.
    To contact us, make sure to use our email in the about section of this channel.

Комментарии • 263

  • @joemoore4027
    @joemoore4027 Год назад +28

    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.

    • @davidwilburn6314
      @davidwilburn6314 Год назад +3

      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. :)

    • @77bubba00
      @77bubba00 Год назад

      @joemoore4027, I just noticed your comment after I posted mine. LOL! Sounds very familiar.

    • @77bubba00
      @77bubba00 Год назад

      @davidwilburn6314, True. They do sit up there quite a ways. 🙂

    • @giogaming4563
      @giogaming4563 4 месяца назад

      Gb saving lives,men women children,🌻katie&gio&girl with all the kids,Boston 🕯☔️

  • @rtrThanos
    @rtrThanos Год назад +7

    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.

    • @master9894
      @master9894 Год назад

      fat albert was a c130 not a c 17

  • @AMJDG
    @AMJDG Год назад +12

    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...

    • @justing42
      @justing42 Год назад +1

      It’s called a vortex

    • @AMJDG
      @AMJDG Год назад

      @@justing42 👍

  • @duaneronan8199
    @duaneronan8199 Год назад +16

    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
      @johnwilliams1091 Год назад

      Great comment, thanks for sharing your insight

    • @feedingravens
      @feedingravens Год назад

      @@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.

  • @jayhershey7525
    @jayhershey7525 Год назад +4

    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!

  • @denniscoleman8802
    @denniscoleman8802 Год назад +1

    Was an Air Force Jet Engine Tech….all Jets can make the “tornado” effect.
    C17 is awesome!😎

  • @TheLarinator
    @TheLarinator Год назад +3

    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.

  • @timferguson1593
    @timferguson1593 Год назад +3

    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!

    • @ScottZane
      @ScottZane Год назад

      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.

  • @mrgold3591
    @mrgold3591 Год назад +17

    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
      @danthepaninjapancq Год назад

      And what was the cargo?

    • @mrgold3591
      @mrgold3591 Год назад

      @@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.

  • @johnwilliams1091
    @johnwilliams1091 Год назад +7

    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.

    • @richardwalling9695
      @richardwalling9695 Год назад

      I spent 24 hours on a 141 going from Eglin AFB the Korat Thailand in 1968. We stopped at Elmindorf Alaska and Yakota Japan.

  • @Sander-fh7oc
    @Sander-fh7oc Год назад +3

    Aweome power. Thanks to all service men and women and their families.

  • @rickybobby7285
    @rickybobby7285 Год назад +22

    American built! Now let's get those b-52's re-engined

    • @jonbutcher9805
      @jonbutcher9805 Год назад +1

      They are, but going to use RR engines. Yea America.

    • @user-ps2lc9rq3i
      @user-ps2lc9rq3i Год назад +3

      @@jonbutcher9805they’re actually Pratt and Whitney engines

    • @rickybobby7285
      @rickybobby7285 Год назад +1

      @@user-ps2lc9rq3i thank you

    • @moulonz
      @moulonz Год назад +1

      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.

    • @A10goBRRRRTT
      @A10goBRRRRTT Год назад +1

      @@moulonz military power wise it is #1 but I see what you mean and agree

  • @khurramriaz9879
    @khurramriaz9879 Год назад +6

    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.

  • @cliffords.8341
    @cliffords.8341 Год назад +5

    Watching and listening to the maintenance part of this video is like watching behind the scenes of a movie, but better.

  • @stanstanly3812
    @stanstanly3812 Год назад +10

    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.

  • @user-ld8mw6yp3t
    @user-ld8mw6yp3t Год назад

    الله اكبر
    لا اله الا الله
    اشهد الا اله الا الله
    واشهد ان محمد رسول الله

  • @watchmanneil52776
    @watchmanneil52776 Год назад +4

    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!!!

    • @jeffpalmer5502
      @jeffpalmer5502 Год назад

      Wow that is a great story! Thanks for serving and thanks for sharing.🍻

    • @waterwalker1315
      @waterwalker1315 Год назад

      Wasn't that a C-123K Provider?

  • @husker_nation
    @husker_nation Год назад +7

    These are amazing. Been in them many times and combat take offs /landings are freaking amazing

  • @nate4036
    @nate4036 Год назад +12

    I’m pleased to see everyone wearing their pt belts. Makes the situation so much safer.

    • @justing42
      @justing42 Год назад +1

      We called them disco belts… not used for PT in the USAF

    • @nate4036
      @nate4036 Год назад

      @@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.

  • @matthewcurry3565
    @matthewcurry3565 Год назад +4

    That's a sophisticated plane. Like damn. I knew what they were, but did not realize they are perfect air whales.

  • @philhand5830
    @philhand5830 Год назад +3

    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!!!

  • @johnmoss8230
    @johnmoss8230 Год назад +1

    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

    • @ScottZane
      @ScottZane Год назад +1

      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.

    • @ScottZane
      @ScottZane Год назад

      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.

  • @StrikeNoir105E
    @StrikeNoir105E Год назад +1

    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.

  • @dscdrkel5546
    @dscdrkel5546 Год назад +2

    THAT DAMA MUSIC NOISE IS UNCALLED FOR

  • @jerryboyden588
    @jerryboyden588 Год назад

    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.

  • @yunassaxer7119
    @yunassaxer7119 Год назад +1

  • @timferguson1593
    @timferguson1593 Год назад +2

    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!

  • @user-ld8mw6yp3t
    @user-ld8mw6yp3t Год назад

    الله اكبر والعزة لله ولرسوله وللمؤمنين

  • @shadovanish7435
    @shadovanish7435 Год назад +24

    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.

    • @LairdWilly
      @LairdWilly Год назад +1

      Thanks for mentioning that. I was fixing to if somebody didn't.

    • @davidwilburn6314
      @davidwilburn6314 Год назад +1

      That was going to be one of my comments as well. Thx for covering it already.

    • @largesleepermadness6648
      @largesleepermadness6648 Год назад

      My dad flew the C-141s thanks for bringing that up.

    • @wallbanger3
      @wallbanger3 Год назад

      Are they still flying the C141 ? I remember those from 40 yrs ago

    • @davidwilburn6314
      @davidwilburn6314 Год назад

      @@wallbanger3 A quick query on the Internet says it's now retired from service.

  • @heinzbreuer2674
    @heinzbreuer2674 Год назад

    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....🥇

  • @rogerfilsraphael4886
    @rogerfilsraphael4886 Год назад

    America is the best in all line viva america

  • @Boingfish1
    @Boingfish1 Год назад

    McDonnell Douglas, you can give that builder the credit they deserve. F-15 too!

  • @joesanchez979
    @joesanchez979 Год назад +3

    One of my favorites 🙂

  • @Wendygirljp
    @Wendygirljp Год назад +4

    The "waterspout" effect has been seen in 737, A320, 767, 747-400, and 777s. This is not just during thrust reverse, but in idle.

    • @gordonmiles9995
      @gordonmiles9995 Год назад +1

      I've seen the back end of electric Motors do the same thing. It's nothing groundbreaking

  • @ScottZane
    @ScottZane Год назад

    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.

  • @qualityman1965
    @qualityman1965 Год назад

    If the US had never been the predatory military dependant nation that it is, we would never have seen this engineering marvels.

  • @KLove89
    @KLove89 Год назад +1

    They know they love making giant dust clouds just like being a kid on a dirt road. Can't grow out of it.

  • @steveskouson9620
    @steveskouson9620 Год назад +5

    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

    • @jayreiter268
      @jayreiter268 Год назад

      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.

    • @keithfreitas2983
      @keithfreitas2983 Год назад

      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.

    • @jayreiter268
      @jayreiter268 Год назад

      @@keithfreitas2983 any relation to a Freitas who worked for TWA at LAX?

  • @yindu_Weige8888
    @yindu_Weige8888 Год назад +1

    谢谢分享❤️

  • @crtinde
    @crtinde Год назад +9

    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.

    • @justing42
      @justing42 Год назад

      We did that in the Air Force…its called a FOD walk

  • @pratikkatkar5032
    @pratikkatkar5032 Год назад +2

    P and w engine is backbone of aircraft

  • @banshessfail1250
    @banshessfail1250 Год назад +4

    Every turbo fan/jet engin does this if the air is humid enough...

  • @johnbecker6058
    @johnbecker6058 Год назад +4

    I've seen the same vortex form in front of both F15 and F16 inlets.

    • @philhand5830
      @philhand5830 Год назад

      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!!!

  • @denistate3697
    @denistate3697 Год назад +1

    Fantastic

  • @mbmpkw
    @mbmpkw Год назад

    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!

  • @manstarxranx9209
    @manstarxranx9209 Год назад

    USA Powerful Super Army! God bless America !

  • @KK-mr4fn
    @KK-mr4fn Год назад +1

    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.

  • @feltdoctor
    @feltdoctor Год назад +1

    In Charleston SC these things come flying over the beaches very low. What a magnificent beast. God bless America!

  • @dr.doofenshmerts2917
    @dr.doofenshmerts2917 Год назад

    I actually went in a C-17 today and it is super cool

  • @bedoakgun
    @bedoakgun Год назад +2

    nice video, i like your content

  • @pedrorodriguez2914
    @pedrorodriguez2914 Год назад

    Thank you for the concert.😎🌴

  • @stevewhite6861
    @stevewhite6861 Год назад +11

    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.

    • @davidwilburn6314
      @davidwilburn6314 Год назад

      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.

    • @stevewhite6861
      @stevewhite6861 Год назад

      @@davidwilburn6314 My son in law as I said is a C17 pilot and it was him who told me that.

    • @davidwilburn6314
      @davidwilburn6314 Год назад

      @@stevewhite6861 I've learned in my long history of aviation never to trust pilots in such matters! I want empirical data. 😆

    • @stevewhite6861
      @stevewhite6861 Год назад +1

      @@davidwilburn6314 I trust my son in law and I have been on a C17 as well.

    • @davidwilburn6314
      @davidwilburn6314 Год назад

      @@stevewhite6861 I'm pursuing it and I'll get back w you. Quite curious now

  • @alexanderbriceno2524
    @alexanderbriceno2524 Год назад +1

    Es bello deverian contruir uno cinco beses más grande o diez beses más grande

  • @uchungnguyen7686
    @uchungnguyen7686 Год назад

    Tuyệt Vòi lắm

  • @jamesberwick2210
    @jamesberwick2210 Год назад

    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.

  • @sandraharper4354
    @sandraharper4354 Год назад +1

    c-141a star lifter

  • @mow4ncry
    @mow4ncry Год назад

    I see the C-17 take off and land all the time, I'm just now on the road from Travis AFB

  • @poncowinatan3776
    @poncowinatan3776 Год назад +1

    Nice😍

  • @P-J-W-777
    @P-J-W-777 Год назад +4

    The C-130 was even more impressive when it had JATO capability.

    • @brettmorton7365
      @brettmorton7365 Год назад +1

      Or when they landed one on a carrier!

    • @P-J-W-777
      @P-J-W-777 Год назад +1

      @@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!

    • @brettmorton7365
      @brettmorton7365 Год назад +1

      @Philliph Whirley and i believe it started its take off from where it stopped its landing! You're absolutely right, amazing piece of kit!

    • @philhand5830
      @philhand5830 Год назад

      Oh, yeah!!! Loved the max effort takeoffs and landings!!! Yeah, riiight!!!

    • @P-J-W-777
      @P-J-W-777 Год назад +1

      @@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.

  • @garvinshands2135
    @garvinshands2135 Год назад +2

    All jet engine's are capable of water tornadoes from the tarmac.

  • @duncanbauer7309
    @duncanbauer7309 Год назад

    Do miss those AGS Days sometimes.

  • @eutimiochavez415
    @eutimiochavez415 Год назад +2

    Let’s build new B 52 s ,not just new engine s

  • @lythaikhoa7384
    @lythaikhoa7384 Год назад

    Good

  • @JeffRL1956
    @JeffRL1956 Год назад +1

    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.

  • @user-ui9gm5vt1b
    @user-ui9gm5vt1b Год назад +1

    We call it BLI(Bounday Layer Ingestion).

  • @flyer617
    @flyer617 Год назад +2

    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.

  • @rhrh2025
    @rhrh2025 Год назад

    Jets create vortecs in many ways. Small "tornadoes" also are created by the tip of the wing slicing through the air!

  • @sawyer4981
    @sawyer4981 Год назад

    I bet that thing burns more fuel on takeoff than I'll use in my entire life lmao.

  • @invictusfarmer7188
    @invictusfarmer7188 Год назад +2

    curious why it pulls from the ground. what sneaky force is at work here lol

    • @brettmorton7365
      @brettmorton7365 Год назад +1

      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..

    • @invictusfarmer7188
      @invictusfarmer7188 Год назад +1

      @@brettmorton7365 thank you! i appreciate you taking the time to answer my question!

    • @brettmorton7365
      @brettmorton7365 Год назад +1

      @@invictusfarmer7188 glad to shed some light 👍🏻

  • @timengineman2nd714
    @timengineman2nd714 Год назад +1

    Actually the Globemaster (C-74) was used in the Berlin Airlift!

  • @johnshields6852
    @johnshields6852 8 месяцев назад

    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.

  • @pesawatindonesia
    @pesawatindonesia Год назад

    Bisa Membuat Mini Tornado mister

  • @johnstyron5891
    @johnstyron5891 Год назад +1

    Yep and C141

  • @josedelmarmattos182
    @josedelmarmattos182 Год назад +3

    Eu não sabia que este modelo de aviõe C 17 da força aérea americana andava para trás também 🤔🤔🇧🇷

  • @forever67943
    @forever67943 Год назад

    Usa ❤

  • @atvruler
    @atvruler Год назад

    My dad was a loadmaster on a c141 then cross trained on the c17 JB Charleston in sc i used to live on base and i remember all the c17s lined up on the flightline it was the 315th squadron reserve unit but he was active duty especially wen iraq and Afghanistan was poppin off

  • @sabbavarapuvalerian2761
    @sabbavarapuvalerian2761 Год назад

    👌👌👌

  • @imammaarifarif4388
    @imammaarifarif4388 Год назад

    Bismillahirrahmanirrahim,, innailaihi wa innailaihi irojiun
    Astaghfirullah wa atubu ilaihi
    ALLAHUMA SHOLI ALLA SAYYIDINA MUHAMMAD,, WA ALLA SAYYIDINA MUHAMMAD,, AAMIIN

  • @bredsheeran2897
    @bredsheeran2897 Год назад +1

    It can also land on aircraft carriers

  • @stewarthill5878
    @stewarthill5878 10 месяцев назад

    Ah, I’m sorry but you forgot about the C-141 Globe Master. That cargo US Airforce transport plane kicked but during Vietnam.

  • @jackking5567
    @jackking5567 Год назад +2

    All those weapons and they still lost Nam lol.

  • @Channeltobecomeabillionaire
    @Channeltobecomeabillionaire Год назад

    Nothing is more powerful than our God Almighty

  • @grahamcampbell400
    @grahamcampbell400 Год назад

    I wonder what the gas bill is ? .. I love it

  • @alfredoibarra4592
    @alfredoibarra4592 Год назад

    I saw one of those Galaxies at an Air Show in Amarillo, Tx. That and many other types of planes and helicopters.

  • @jimparsons6803
    @jimparsons6803 Год назад

    About like a sports car in many ways. Requires only the more proficient worker of wrenches or using screwdrivers, bullet loader and unloader and on and on. Often there are international competitions to find out which country has the better maintenance personal.

  • @shadowopsairman1583
    @shadowopsairman1583 Год назад

    Saw this on F-16 for 5 years

  • @KevinDeal
    @KevinDeal Год назад

    The C124 was replaced by the C141 and the C141 was replaced by the C17.

  • @clarenceyoung7511
    @clarenceyoung7511 Год назад

    Show me the battery manufacturer please do I can hot rod my King Air!😂

  • @sandraharper4354
    @sandraharper4354 Год назад +1

    the c-141a cruise speed was 550 nots the burn off fuel 12000

  • @rogermiller2159
    @rogermiller2159 Год назад

    Is there a jet engine compressor that does NOT compress air?
    That would be the greatest advancement in stealth technology!
    No contrails!

  • @jerryboyden588
    @jerryboyden588 Год назад

    It’s called a vortex gentleman.

  • @rngriff1
    @rngriff1 Год назад

    A C-5 aircraft can do the same thing, especially after it was rained.

  • @jermaineallen2915
    @jermaineallen2915 Год назад

    This, big enough to carry a container.

  • @raven4k998
    @raven4k998 Год назад

    now they just have to work on improving the tornado that it makes🤣🤣🤣

  • @jeffpalmer5502
    @jeffpalmer5502 Год назад +4

    You skipped over the C-141 which was in between the too. And the C-5A which was / is in a league of its own. Well unless you include the Antinovs.
    I was at the roll out if the final C-17 in Longbeach. Never understood why Obama shut down the program when there were still interested parties? He must’ve bought Airbus stock.🍻

  • @darkgardener9577
    @darkgardener9577 Год назад

    Get up, stand up, shuffle to the door......

  • @blizzard7993
    @blizzard7993 Год назад

    Who else thought this was going to be a short video😂

  • @michaelsocha7068
    @michaelsocha7068 Год назад

    I always hear about its powerful engines there rated at 40,000lbs of thrust meanwhile although alot bigger ge-9x engines can make over 100k of thrust.

  • @saphterpeter2701
    @saphterpeter2701 Год назад +1

    but i see most on a rainy day taking in water at a stop b4 take off

  • @Shane_O.5158
    @Shane_O.5158 Год назад +1

    please play the music softer.