Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Boeing ‘close’ to launching BC-17
flightglobal.com ^ | N/A | N/A

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 ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy
KEYWORDS: aerospace; bc17; boeing; c17; heavylift
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-72 next last

1 posted on 05/23/2007 12:25:04 PM PDT by Freeport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Freeport

2 posted on 05/23/2007 12:30:19 PM PDT by waimea.man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Freeport; COEXERJ145; microgood; liberallarry; cmsgop; shaggy eel; RayChuang88; Larry Lucido; ...
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.


3 posted on 05/23/2007 12:31:08 PM PDT by Paleo Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: waimea.man

My picture’s bigger.


4 posted on 05/23/2007 12:32:00 PM PDT by Paleo Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Freeport

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


5 posted on 05/23/2007 12:34:21 PM PDT by stm (Believe 1% of what you hear in the drive-by media and take half of that with a grain of salt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative

LOL


6 posted on 05/23/2007 12:34:53 PM PDT by patton (19yrs ... only 4,981yrs to go ;))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: waimea.man

Again?.........

7 posted on 05/23/2007 12:35:03 PM PDT by Red Badger (My gerund got caught in my diphthong, and now I have a dangling participle...............)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

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

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


8 posted on 05/23/2007 12:35:32 PM PDT by IslandJeff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger
What a majestic, beautiful aircraft the B-17G Flying Fortress was!
9 posted on 05/23/2007 12:37:30 PM PDT by stm (Believe 1% of what you hear in the drive-by media and take half of that with a grain of salt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Freeport

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


10 posted on 05/23/2007 12:37:46 PM PDT by T.Smith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative
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.

11 posted on 05/23/2007 12:38:48 PM PDT by Freeport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative

They need to improve that paint scheme a little bit.


12 posted on 05/23/2007 12:40:11 PM PDT by 68skylark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative

why did Cheney do that?


13 posted on 05/23/2007 12:41:00 PM PDT by Steve Van Doorn (*in my best Eric cartman voice* 'I love you guys')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: T.Smith
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.

14 posted on 05/23/2007 12:41:04 PM PDT by Paleo Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Steve Van Doorn

Probably to protect the C-17 line.


15 posted on 05/23/2007 12:41:40 PM PDT by Paleo Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: T.Smith

Skydivers?

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


16 posted on 05/23/2007 12:42:00 PM PDT by Loud Mime (An undefeated enemy will always be an enemy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: T.Smith

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


17 posted on 05/23/2007 12:44:30 PM PDT by stm (Believe 1% of what you hear in the drive-by media and take half of that with a grain of salt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: T.Smith
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.

18 posted on 05/23/2007 12:46:56 PM PDT by Freeport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Freeport

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


19 posted on 05/23/2007 12:49:52 PM PDT by wbill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #20 Removed by Moderator


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-72 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson