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


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: 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: 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: 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: 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 ]

To: Freeport

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.


25 posted on 05/23/2007 12:52:20 PM PDT by Waverunner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Freeport

Would the BC-17 be used for passengers or for civilian cargo?


30 posted on 05/23/2007 1:17:53 PM PDT by em2vn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Freeport

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.


35 posted on 05/23/2007 2:05:11 PM PDT by saganite (Billions and billions and billions----and that's just the NASA budget!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Freeport
why is FAR21.27 an obstacle to making the bc-17 “civiliansized”
36 posted on 05/23/2007 2:08:07 PM PDT by crucified14yearold
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Freeport

BC-17? A bomber version of the C-17 Globemaster? I guess the B-52s couldn’t last forever.


55 posted on 05/23/2007 6:00:40 PM PDT by Oztrich Boy ("Caesar - he is a barbarian and considers that the customs of his tribe are the laws of Nature")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

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