Boeing ‘close’ to launching BC-17

flightglobal.com ^ | N/A | N/A

[waimea.man]

[Paleo Conservative]

I wonder if Boeing will develop a higher gross weight version with longer range? It's current shortcoming is that it can't fly transatlantic routes with a full payload without refueling. It's too bad Dick Cheney forced Lockheed to destroy the machine tools for building the C-5 back in the early 1990's when he was Secretary of Defense.

If you want on or off my aerospace ping list, please contact me by Freep mail.

[Paleo Conservative]

My picture’s bigger.

[stm]

And all through the halls of AirBust not a creature is stirring, not even a mouse (rat).

[patton]

LOL

[Red Badger]

Again?.........

[IslandJeff]

Dave Bowman, who adds: “I’ve never received RFPs before.”

Good to see him back at work. Something wonderful, indeed.

[stm]

What a majestic, beautiful aircraft the B-17G Flying Fortress was!

[T.Smith]

What benefits does a commercial version of the C-17 have over other commercial aircraft? Short field landings?

[Freeport]

C-5s have their own issues and you’ll never see one land on an unprepared runway; even to the extent that the
C-17A can now.

And the C-17B’s supposed to be able to but down on a sandy beach... Not that I’d particularly want to try a stunt like that, but that’s the spec.

[68skylark]

They need to improve that paint scheme a little bit.

[Steve Van Doorn]

why did Cheney do that?

[Paleo Conservative]

What benefits does a commercial version of the C-17 have over other commercial aircraft? Short field landings?

Short field landings on rough fields including gravel runways. They could be used to carry large cargo to remote regions of the world where Fedex and other conventional freighters can't land.

[Paleo Conservative]

Probably to protect the C-17 line.

[Loud Mime]

Skydivers?

Paratroopers use it; must be one heck of a windblast!

[stm]

That is one of them. They can operate out of airports that other aircraft of it’s size cannot.

[Freeport]

To date, it’s the only heavy lifter that can land on unprepared fields. The An-12x and C-5s all need llllloooonnnggg runways to put down on.

However, according to the GAO:

Military Airlift: Comparison of C-5 and C-17 Airfield Availability (Letter Report, 07/11/94, GAO/NSIAD-94-225).

The Air Force has greatly overestimated the number of airfields worldwide that can accommodate the wide-bodied, C-17 cargo plane; when runway strength is considered, the C-17's wartime advantage over its C-5 predecessor shrinks from 6,400 to about 900 airfields. The C-17 advantage dwindles even further when only airfields that have been determined by the Air Force to be suitable for military operations are considered. So far, the Air Force has surveyed about 2,800 airfields as suitable for military operations. When wartime landing requirements, including minimum runway strength, are considered, the C-17's wartime airfield advantage is 145. When airfields in the United States, Canada, and Mexico are excluded, the C-17's wartime advantage falls to 95 airfields. Although the Air Face claims that the C-17's ability to land at small, austere airfields during wartime is a significant military advantage, the Defense Department has identified only three such airfields that the C-17 would use in major regional contingency scenarios; two are in Korea and one is in Saudi Arabia.

[wbill]

AlGore will require new owners of this plane to buy some SERIOUS carbon credits.