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



Welcome back to the Fluctus Channel for an amazing look into the capabilities of some of the worldโ€™s greatest military airlift cargo planes like the C-17 Globemaster III and the unique features they possess.

Fluctus is a website and YouTube 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 Youtube 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.

Donโ€™t forget to follow us on twitter:
https://twitter.com/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.

source

41 thoughts on “This US Air Force C-17 Engine is So Powerful it Can Create a Mini Tornado”

  1. 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.

    Reply
  2. 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.

    Reply
  3. 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 itโ€™s nose to bow at the audience after landing, and the engine tornados, they easily win the hearts of the audience.

    Reply
  4. 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

    Reply
  5. Points of personal interest.

    What happens at the air-intake when the blades of the C130 pitch to thrust-reversal.?
    = Use the directional-exhaust-vectoring of the sea-harrier for the air-intake of C130, conceptually.?

    C17 sucks good during thrust-reversal. The ground-clearance of engines of passenger planes is … lower … similar vortex observable from videos and they name those things "leap"… Acceleration down the runway for take-off without foreign-objects leaping should be … thrust-reversal during landing should be… max-throttle near ground during landing is vaccum(air-cushion ground-effect defeat with suction of ground)…

    Reply
  6. 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.

    Reply
  7. 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.

    Reply

Leave a Comment