Boeing BC-17
Thread Starter
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
From: N/A
I looked at the C-141 FAA certification here:
http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory...$FILE/a2so.pdf
It is limited to 79 passengers over land because of emmergency exit requirement and only under FAR-91 and with max 9 occupants over water.
Otherwise its is a cargo only aircraft with a max of 9 occupants.
Any military contracts with that would involve cargo only, never troops. I think other civilian ramped aircraft such as the Lockheed C-130, IL-76, An-124, AN-12 etc have similar restrictions with regards to passengers, unless there is some sort of waiver I am not aware of that allows them to carry passengers for the military only.
http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory...$FILE/a2so.pdf
It is limited to 79 passengers over land because of emmergency exit requirement and only under FAR-91 and with max 9 occupants over water.
Otherwise its is a cargo only aircraft with a max of 9 occupants.
Any military contracts with that would involve cargo only, never troops. I think other civilian ramped aircraft such as the Lockheed C-130, IL-76, An-124, AN-12 etc have similar restrictions with regards to passengers, unless there is some sort of waiver I am not aware of that allows them to carry passengers for the military only.
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
From: Charleston SC
Great thread. I'm a C-17 driver and always wanted the C-17 to be FAA type rated. It is an incredible machine that can do some amazing things but those capabilities are not necessarily commercially viable (air refueling, IMC formation airdrop, aircraft armor and defensive systems). Remember this aircraft was designed as a millitary machine for "direct-delivery" of oversized and outsized cargo from stateside bases directly to the front lines.
I agree that there seems to be a very small niche of civilian airlift work that the C-17 would be profitable in doing but I know that it would do it very well.
I agree that there seems to be a very small niche of civilian airlift work that the C-17 would be profitable in doing but I know that it would do it very well.
Evertonian
Joined: May 2000
Aviation Qualifications: Non-Aircrew
Posts: 13,470
Likes: 278
From: #3117# Ppruner of the Year Nominee 2005
Well, there's a business opportunity Qpilot. Get yerself a military charter contract using the C-17. Australia just bought 4 to increase the uplift capacity for our second hand, reconditioned Abrams from Honest Georges military surplus stocks (Seasprites on special, this week only!) but prior to that we used USAF or Antonovs (especially in E. Timor).
There's bound to be other countries that don't want to buy them, but could use them every so often...NATO countries for example.
Just a thought...
There's bound to be other countries that don't want to buy them, but could use them every so often...NATO countries for example.
Just a thought...
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 1,637
Likes: 2
From: Stuck in the middle...
Well one thing I've been wondering is, with all this argy-bargy about the KC-135 replacement competition, why not just forget about both 767 and A330 tankers and develop a KC-17?
Except for the flying boom, I would've thought it'd be pretty straight-forward to put tanks/bladders in the cargo space and plumb up the wings to do hose-&-drogue work.
Suddenly, you have a multi-role jet aircraft able to operate with great versatility and able to convert back at short notice to provide extra airlift capacity. Per-airframe cost also comes down as you're getting more off the same line. Also benefits from crewing, maint, stores & spares and in-theatre infrastructure aspects.
It seems to me that the 707 and C130 airframes provided similar multi-role benefits to the US military (eg. tanker, special transport, AWACS, JSTARS, TACAMO; transport, tanker, gunship). It seems strange to me that the same arguments don't stand with today's equipment.
Except for the flying boom, I would've thought it'd be pretty straight-forward to put tanks/bladders in the cargo space and plumb up the wings to do hose-&-drogue work.
Suddenly, you have a multi-role jet aircraft able to operate with great versatility and able to convert back at short notice to provide extra airlift capacity. Per-airframe cost also comes down as you're getting more off the same line. Also benefits from crewing, maint, stores & spares and in-theatre infrastructure aspects.
It seems to me that the 707 and C130 airframes provided similar multi-role benefits to the US military (eg. tanker, special transport, AWACS, JSTARS, TACAMO; transport, tanker, gunship). It seems strange to me that the same arguments don't stand with today's equipment.
Evertonian
Joined: May 2000
Aviation Qualifications: Non-Aircrew
Posts: 13,470
Likes: 278
From: #3117# Ppruner of the Year Nominee 2005
Thread Starter
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
From: N/A
It seems to me that the 707 and C130 airframes provided similar multi-role benefits to the US military (eg. tanker, special transport, AWACS, JSTARS, TACAMO; transport, tanker, gunship). It seems strange to me that the same arguments don't stand with today's equipment.
The C-17 could propably do all of the above, the only point being, can they do it as cheaply and as effeciently as other aircraft. The brand new Il-76s that were sold to India a few years ago only cost about 35 million dollars and Russia, which owned its own oil companies, did not care if the beast burned 9 tons of fuel an hour......
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 1,637
Likes: 2
From: Stuck in the middle...
Buster,
240,000 lb is about 109,000kg - so not much difference.
In this case, I'm more referring to shifting and transferring fuel, but having the ability to shift military cargoes of other types.
If the A330 tanker could do all the C-17 can do, off the same sort of strips, then that'd be just as good. I'm yet to see an A330 back itself off a stand.
I agree there is a need for a number of airliner-type airframes to rapidly move personnel and their immediate needs; however there are loads of airliners around which can be chartered at short notice for this purpose. The same can't be said for long-range transport direct into theatre, or in-flight refuelling capability.
What I have trouble understanding is the cost thing: the RAAF, f'rinstance, is spending a bucketload on each of a small number of C17s and A330 MRTTs. I would've thought it more effective to get a bigger number of multi-role C17s (if such were available) - thus giving you up to, say, double (if the total order was 8 frames) the brute airlift capacity plus the IFR capability, plus a small number of straight-off-the-civil-line (so cheaper) A330s (with fully contracted civil maint) for troop movement, etc.
Whilst QF or whoever will be able to handle deep maint for the MRTTs, how will they get on with gizmos like the boom? Meanwhile, you'll have a small number of dedicated RAAF engos doing C17 stuff and then probably sitting on their backsides in between U/Ss.
And the same can be said for the RAF and USAF (tho' clearly the latter there is a very big C17 operator so doesn't have the worry about a small, dedicated C17 maint group).
240,000 lb is about 109,000kg - so not much difference.
In this case, I'm more referring to shifting and transferring fuel, but having the ability to shift military cargoes of other types.
If the A330 tanker could do all the C-17 can do, off the same sort of strips, then that'd be just as good. I'm yet to see an A330 back itself off a stand.
I agree there is a need for a number of airliner-type airframes to rapidly move personnel and their immediate needs; however there are loads of airliners around which can be chartered at short notice for this purpose. The same can't be said for long-range transport direct into theatre, or in-flight refuelling capability.
What I have trouble understanding is the cost thing: the RAAF, f'rinstance, is spending a bucketload on each of a small number of C17s and A330 MRTTs. I would've thought it more effective to get a bigger number of multi-role C17s (if such were available) - thus giving you up to, say, double (if the total order was 8 frames) the brute airlift capacity plus the IFR capability, plus a small number of straight-off-the-civil-line (so cheaper) A330s (with fully contracted civil maint) for troop movement, etc.
Whilst QF or whoever will be able to handle deep maint for the MRTTs, how will they get on with gizmos like the boom? Meanwhile, you'll have a small number of dedicated RAAF engos doing C17 stuff and then probably sitting on their backsides in between U/Ss.
And the same can be said for the RAF and USAF (tho' clearly the latter there is a very big C17 operator so doesn't have the worry about a small, dedicated C17 maint group).
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Joined: Jul 2000
Aviation Qualifications: Spotter
Posts: 24,645
Likes: 7,343
From: Peripatetic
The advantage of both the Boeing offerings (767/777) and Airbus (A330) is the two engines. The outer wing can take pods clear of the jet wash. Anyone done any trials astern the C-17 wing?
Fitting a boom means a ramp swop each time, is that possible or cost effective? Ans what's the fatigue cost? We had C-130 ramps fitted for a HDU for Falkland Island support. The FI usage killed the airframes.
Since the C-17 would be only able to do either freight or AAR at once, with a long re-role turn round time. So I think the flexibility would tend to turn out to be spurious. And with the higher running costs and the expense of having to hire AT to take the troops when the C-17 was toting the fuel, I can't see there being any cost savings.
If there were, I'm sure Boeing would have pointed it out......
Fitting a boom means a ramp swop each time, is that possible or cost effective? Ans what's the fatigue cost? We had C-130 ramps fitted for a HDU for Falkland Island support. The FI usage killed the airframes.
Since the C-17 would be only able to do either freight or AAR at once, with a long re-role turn round time. So I think the flexibility would tend to turn out to be spurious. And with the higher running costs and the expense of having to hire AT to take the troops when the C-17 was toting the fuel, I can't see there being any cost savings.
If there were, I'm sure Boeing would have pointed it out......
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 1,637
Likes: 2
From: Stuck in the middle...
ORAC,
Good points well argued.
I guess I'd been taking a slightly cynical (but commercially sound) view with respect to Boeing, in that it's probably more profitable to them to punch another hundred or so airframes off a line which would have been fully amortised years ago.
Good points well argued.
I guess I'd been taking a slightly cynical (but commercially sound) view with respect to Boeing, in that it's probably more profitable to them to punch another hundred or so airframes off a line which would have been fully amortised years ago.
Evertonian
Joined: May 2000
Aviation Qualifications: Non-Aircrew
Posts: 13,470
Likes: 278
From: #3117# Ppruner of the Year Nominee 2005
I guess therein lies the beauty of the An-124. Brilliant freight uplift and it can tote about 80 fully packed troops upstairs.
I imagine it would have the same limitations, perhaps on a grander scale, to those that Orac pointed out.
But, TD, you're right about the mixed fleet. We often knocked AN & recently QF about fleet variety & how some airlines do so much better operating a single type (with qualifications of course). Perhaps if some smart operator developed a true multi role support aircraft, they'd make a fortune?
Would overwing engines on the C-17 mitigate the jet wash to acceptable limits? Just a thought....
I imagine it would have the same limitations, perhaps on a grander scale, to those that Orac pointed out.
But, TD, you're right about the mixed fleet. We often knocked AN & recently QF about fleet variety & how some airlines do so much better operating a single type (with qualifications of course). Perhaps if some smart operator developed a true multi role support aircraft, they'd make a fortune?
Would overwing engines on the C-17 mitigate the jet wash to acceptable limits? Just a thought....
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
From: Charleston SC
Overwing Engines
Over wing Engines? Not a likely fix. The C-17 uses powered lift to fly approaches. The flaps redirect engine thrust downwards providing a good portion of the lift and allowing the aircraft to achieve lower approach speeds.
Thanks. Clearly & succinctly explained.
Thread Starter
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
From: N/A
