Whitehatter:
With my C-5 experience, I agree it would have been useful for outsize civilian cargo. BUT.....reengining absolute necessity. With TF-39s, it could not, then or now, meet FAR 25 performance requirements. While more fuel efficient than the C-5ski, it not great with the present engines-about 22,000 lb/hour average. Its roll-on, roll-off capabilities are second to none, but at the cost of very complicated and maintenance intensive hydraulic and landing gear system. The C-5 usable volume for really outsized stuff is probably better than the 747 because it has only one floor, just a poor pallet mover, 36 positions vs. 48 (I believe, 436L)
There was an operator at KPSM, proposing a C-17 outsize and regular cargo operation. I attended a briefing and it was obvious none of them had clue of what they were talking. I asked about their proposed crew schedule and FAA 30/7 and he didn't know about the reg. They were going after Postal cargo (postal contracts
) to fill in when no outsize cargo was about. The C-17 could not carry enough mail to pay for the APU fuel. With four engines, the cargo capacity doesn't justify the fuel burn. It really doesn't have that great outsize cargo ability.
Lastly, good as it is, the C-17 is too specialized for military use and carries too much non-payload equipment to be a civil plane. Who needs paradrop, quick change med evac, etc. all of which is pretty much designed in
GF