Posted on 05/23/2007 12:25:00 PM PDT by Freeport
Boeing claims it is closer than ever to launching the long-awaited BC-17 commercial derivative of its C-17 strategic transport, but says the growing gap in guaranteed production beyond delivery of the final contracted aircraft in 2009 makes this, and any further potential study derivatives, increasingly expensive to develop.
“We have several customers with money that have given us requests for proposals,” says C-17 vice president and programme manager Dave Bowman, who adds: “I’ve never received RFPs before.”
Although the company declines to identify the interested groups, Bowman says “this is the closest we’ve ever been to launching this programme, and we have got actual proposals in hand from customers.
“We’re looking forward to launching the programme, which could initially be for between 30 and 60 aircraft,” says Bowman, who adds the potential market “could be upwards of 100 aircraft.”
(Excerpt) Read more at flightglobal.com ...
But a C-5 can carry about twice as much as one C-17 and not have to refuel on transatlantic trips. With the RERP program to reengine and extend the life of exiting C-5's the MTOW will be increased giving them even more range and payload capabilities. Even though the C-5A and C-5B fleets now have almost the same flight times, the C-5A's have inferior alloys and more corrosion than the C-5B's. There is a question of whether to spend the money refurbing all or part of the C-5B fleet. The one C-5A that has been converted to a C-5M had lots of additional expense compared to the conversion of two C-5B's. Supposedly the C-5A fleet has about 70% of its structural life left. The current cost of the RERP program is almost $85 million per plane, but that's still only about half the cost of building one new C-17. For the cost of building one C-17, the USAF could refurbish two C-5's and get the equivalent capacity of more than four C-17's.
Yeah, that (b17) was a very cool plane. I had the opportunity to go flying in one about 7 years ago, and I’m glad I didn’t turn it down. It was a blast to go up in.
Boeing will shut it down.
It’s the last of McDonnell Douglas non fighter aircraft.
They will be happy when no more MD plants are needed.
Besides the replies about rough field landings, the C-17 can load some amazing sized cargo. I watched the C-17 accompanying Cheney load up the SS detail limo and Suburbans. The Suburbans were loaded side by side. How many commercial haulers can do that?
Correction. The air force is committed to putting all 49 surviving C-5B's and 2 C-5C's through the RERP program. The question is whether to put the the 60 C-5A's that are still being operated in the RERP program. A further complication is that all surviving C-5A's were rewinged in the 1980s. A few years ago the first eleven C-5A's and three other C-5A's were sent to the boneyard to supply spares for the remaining fleet.
The C-47 is my favorite and also the plane that won WWII.
Will I dream?
Would the BC-17 be used for passengers or for civilian cargo?
There is only one aircraft worthy of being called
the B-17.....the Flying Fortress of World War II fame.
My uncle flew this aircraft in the European theater during
the War.
Boeing should call this new aircraft something else....
BC-17 will cause confusion with aviation purists.
If/when the government decides to keep tooling, fixtures, etc.. from a program, someone gets paid to store and maintain that equipment. Sounds trivial but it can amount to a lot of bucks that have to be included in someone's budget which has to be approved by Congress each year. Sometimes, it's a matter of priorities.
Boeing has already sold the site to real estate developers.
I first began calling on Harley-Davidson’s York (PA) motorcycle assembly plant right around the time of the management buy-out. The plant was originally an arsenal that made, among other things, practice aerial bombs for the US Navy. The so-called ‘Bomb Line’ was taking up all kinds of space in the rear of the plant sitting idle under tarps until the Pentagon stopped funding the ‘preservation’ of the equipment. Nobody ‘ordered’ the equipment to be scrapped. It just happens when the money dries-up.
This aircraft isn’t an effective commercial cargo carrier since the DOD has different design requirements than the commercial cargo sector. You can bet that the companies looking to buy this have some fat government contracts lined up to justify the extra cost of operating the aircraft.
Somethings I just do not understand. Why would any tooling be ordered destroyed? That is so stupid. But it in storage, yea, destroying it is just plan crazy.
Budget thing sounds about right penny wise pound foolish. thanks.
So what. If production of a new incarnation of the C-5 was needed, design improvements and modern composite technology would made most of them useless.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.