[Traben]

EK-17U
- Tanker Aircraft -



EK-17U Image A - EK-17U Image B - EK-17U Image C


Game Featured In:
Ace Combat 3: Electrosphere


Operators:
Universal Peace Enforcement Organization


Overview:
Derived from the C-17B, the EK-17U is a dedicated tanker variant. Its ability to lift heavy weight shows that this plane is considerably suitable for carrying tons of gasoline used for air-refueling. It is exclusively used by the Universal Peace Enforcement Organization



SOURCE:
Ace Combat 3: Electrosphere (the game itself)


ACCREDITATION:

[Scarface tfs]

In flight refuelling pic.

Screenshot taken by me.

[Ribbon-Blue]

I've got to say that it is the ugliest tanker I've ever seen...

[JianDaoXiao]

EK-17U GlobeMaster III Blueprints

[Antare]

In the intro ovie it has a 5th engine. dunno why but it could be a heavy lift variant of the EK-17

[Scarface tfs]

Thats interesting. I've seen it before on the movie but I don't know what its for. I would of thought the tanker would of needed a 5th engine since it carries a lot of fuel.

[JianDaoXiao]

(photo)
In the intro ovie it has a 5th engine. dunno why but it could be a heavy lift variant of the EK-17

Oh Antare, your intention is good, but that is not the variant of EK-17U from UPEO, that is the variant of C-17B Globemaster III from General Resource.

[Scarface tfs]

So where is this 5th engine coming from then. Unless its a private transport plane?

Or a heavy lift variant that needs extra thrust?

[Heinkel]

Or just a goof

[Scarface tfs]

Anyway...have another screenshot



Taken by me.

[Heinkel]

IIRC there's a whole lot of aircraft with rudder-mounted engines

[Antare]

E designation is prolly for AWACS capability or as a mobile jamming platform. If you'll notice the EK-17U has a bulbous nose as compared to the standard c-17B used by the GRDF. My take on this is that it houses the Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR radar doesn't need revolving antennas) system. Also one major change is that the engines were moved to within the wings and a bit forward of their opriginal position vs the C-17A for better STOL performance due to the Coanda effect.


Reference the pic of the GRDF C-17 vs the EK-17 for how different the nose is.
May I have your thoughts on the AWACS capability so that I may edit the article.

[Grastens 7]

In the intro ovie it has a 5th engine. dunno why but it could be a heavy lift variant of the EK-17

Those hardpoints add interest... maybe a missile platform?

So where is this 5th engine coming from then. Unless its a private transport plane?

Or a heavy lift variant that needs extra thrust?

I didn't see a 5th engine on the C-17B Globemaster III either... I'll check again.

Putting engines in the tail of an aircraft is the worst idea ever. AND they blocked off the crawlspace to the elevator actuators.

Heinkel is correct, and one of those planes, I might add, is another very successful tanker, the KC-10 Extender.

For thoughts on an AWACS variant, it is very possible, unless there is another aircraft of course that is a better candidate in AC3. Conversions from tankers to AWACS are not frequent...

Edit: Found none. The idea has some credibility, and may be useful for defensive measures in service, even if not a dedicated AWACS. The technology in that time is assumably better than today's, so an AWACS with a nose-mounted radar is possible. The Nimrod had a similar arrangement, but in the 1980s the technology to make such an arrangement feasible did not exist...

Update: I feel quite silly now... but thanks for the information, Zaku.

[Zaku]

Those hardpoints add interest... maybe a missile platform?

They're small fairings that house the flap actuators; they're on C-17As as well as nearly every heavy ever built.

[Zaku]

Well, I meant in relation to the size of the C-17 itself. But yeah, they're not pylons (and before anyone brings it up, no, they cannot be turned into pylons because of their existing internal components taking up space, plus the underside changes shape when the flaps are deployed).

[Grastens 7]

I never said they didn't exist. I said they were horrible designs. I work on 10s, I know. The number 2 engine is everyone's worst enemy. An engine change should not take a week.

My mistake; I didn't know you worked on them.